Section 42 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), VII VII, Rr 11 and 13 Statute of Martyrs (10 of 1984), Arts 123 and 124 for the dismissal of the Plaintiff's Fresh Suit, the filing of the Race Judeta, the scope of the dispute. The principle defendant was that the plaintiff in the first trial was dismissed and the present case was not qualified, the suit was dismissed by the trial court, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of the same decision while rejecting the facts of the plaintiff. Was detected and the operation was interrupted. The plaintiff was bound to challenge such conclusions under the prevailing case and the principles of justice of justice but he chose not to do so and filed another case which was withdrawn and the present case was filed. That the factual findings were bound to the plaintiffs. Unless they were set aside, the proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs were not relied upon on a community basis, with the plaintiffs having to prove the matter in accordance with Articles 123 and 124 of the Martyrdom of the Law, 1984 Plans for the order presented by Photoco may be considered that the official record does not need to be sought by the defendants as well as the court is satisfied and the notice to be taken for the photocopy was the one entered and the claimant in the file was Had failed to prove that the lawyer had not been heard by the plaintiff for a period of 10 years before they had any right to challenge the sale transaction. The attorney did not survive and was not brought anything on record against such results Appellate Court had accepted the results of the review was not sustainable
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
