The scope suit sought the effect of the declaration of a legacy claimant for the preparation of section 42 law in evidence (10 of 1984), Article 64 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), XMLi, R27 Additional evidence. That they are the legal heirs. The defendant, along with the defendant, was the original deceased owner of the suit property, and entitled to take part in the deferred property, which was dismissed simultaneously by the Odyssey, R-27, CPC, for the record keeping on the passport. Was applied under. The original owner of the suit, and it was clear that the passport entries were made later, was stated that the documents were inadmissible at the pending stage because the documents had not been submitted before the trial phase or evidence. According to Article 64 of the Law Testimony of the claimants with the plaintiff in the interest of the defendants in the first appeal phase regarding the evidence was not established, 1984 did not produce the ad witness who knew him personally. And the witnesses were not from the area where the predecessor lived, the witness was the plaintiff's material uncle while the other I was witness to the interest and thus can not rely on these statements. The documentary evidence was presented by the plaintiffs and they were not parties to previous litigation in relation to the suit property; nothing illegal was found in the court's finding.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
