For the pre-arrest cases of sections 13 and 6, the hearing of the requirements was heard by the trial court ruling on the extent of half the property, but the appellate court ruled on the entire property. Under the review, both courts had correctly and legally appreciated the evidence in this regard. Regarding student performance and recorded coordination, the plaintiff met the conditions of section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Impression Act, 1987, the two sides being co-owners in the disputed account, which would remain co-owners in a split case until their original distribution. The plaintiff and the plaintiff between them were that in the present case the appellate court had erroneously observed that the plaintiff and the defendant had no right of Shafiq Sharif on the land that the different numbers of measles were due to its separation. The matter was not based on the intervention of the appellate court in its entirety. The correct definition of revenue records and evidence produced by the parties app was partially accepted and the appellate court's decision was set aside and the trial court's decision restored.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
