Section 13 students, performance requirements and mood informants had a key role in the former case, which was deferred to the date, time and place of Talbi Medit OBS 'performance to mention the time in his statement regarding the person's statement. The informant in his statement failed to mention the time of the disclosure of the information to the plaintiff, rather than mentioning it in the statement \ baht \ ghar har but could not even consider it because \ beth the house was part and parcel. The plaintiff gave Talb details in his interview about the date, time and place of performance of the Television Complaint and was dismissed in support of his Plaintiff, but the informant made his statement regarding the performance of the Plaintiff e-Mohibit. Was not supported. The informant was not proved by the defendant, was bound by the statement of his witness and he could not be denied the statement of the party presenting the witness. The court was bound by its statement in the court that the court had asked the plaintiff not to have the social proof of the petitioner as the reason for the lack of evidence was written notice of the timing of the performance of the Talib Khattab. Were in shape. The application was already prepared and placed by the author, which was against the provisions of section 13 (3) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act of 1987. The general statement left room for the names of the parties, the description of the property and the names of the witnesses. Contrary to the mandate of the law, the plaintiff must make it vigilant that after the deceased plaintiff has been made guilty, the petitioner should use the right of his authorization by sending a notification in writing written by two true witnesses within two weeks.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
