Section 13 law evidence (10 of 1984), arts 71, 164 and 129 (g) pools, fact of sale of requirements and scope suit defendant's claim for pre-emption by any means that all the old kings were not present. The information regarding the sale of witnesses and property came via telephone but no explanation was made at that time, but the suit was dismissed by the trial court after the trial but the appellate court ruled. ? Its implementation must be observed that the students were essential components to establishing the right to autonomy and they must prove when a plaintiff appeared in the witness room while the two business emperors chose not to appear in court where verbally. But something needed to be proven. Proof, such proof should be direct, and in the present source the primary evidence of the Talibs is the fact which can be proved by the person who presented the absence of the pre-kings in intellect. Evidence is to be withheld, and it should be pointed out that the purpose of such pre-emptions should be to exclude the purpose of eliminating material contradictions between statements. There was record of witnesses and petitions regarding the performance of the students The statements of the plaintiff's witnesses were not true in relying on their testimony regarding the needs of the students before the emperors were informed about the sale of suit property over the telephone. But no matter what was done by them when the pre-empire should come to know the truth of the sale of this information by any means.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
