Section 13 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O XLI, R 27 The performance of the requirements for possession by the plaintiff in the litigation proceedings The plaintiff's contention that the appellant's court applied additional evidence to record additional evidence was The request for recording was not decided. And at the time of the trial, there was additional evidence that the plaintiff had suggested to be valid, but he did nothing to examine the postman and the plaintiff had filed with the appellate court at the stage of filing additional evidence. At the trial court it was found that the pre-emptor did not prove to send a notice of publication to the student who moved the petition to fill Lacunae, contrary to the provisions of O XLI, R 27, CPC The absence of the application did not matter anymore, the vacant land was a plot and the developers of the town invited and invited everyone through the advertisement to get the plot. The suit was serious about getting the plot. The plaintiff could have easily bought the same without entering the settlement, the plaintiff had already bought some plot in the town and the claimant was required to obtain the plot. There was no obstruction or deception, if it was serious. The finding of the two courts below was based on the correct definition of the evidence, neither the emperor nor his witnesses sought the exclusion of anything in which the plaintiff had sought the affidavit with them. In the presence of the plaintiff, he was obliged to approach his mate in the presence of the two students, while sending a notice explaining the second interpretation of Ishad Mera (student Ashd) could not be equated with the performance of Talib.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
