The pre-notice case was dismissed in the ACLI, R27 Punjab Pre-Emission Act (IX of 1991), Section 6 Appellate Court requiring the preparation of additional evidence against which additional evidence was filed. The application for was moved, the plaintiff claiming that the documents were needed because of the additional evidence required for the appropriate decision of the lease, the application was rejected by the appellate court during the trial The appropriate opportunity to provide evidence was not provided and the plaintiff was awakened. After a long period of deep sleep, the receipt of confession by the trial plaintiff was not allowed to be presented on the record which stated that the receipts of the confession were not kept on the record because the same was recorded on the record. No attempt was made to bring the receipt of confession from the plaintiff as the plaintiff could not be displayed. E was to be kept on record by the postman; requests for additional evidence were not allowed on extraordinary grounds. The provision of additional evidence was not intended to enable a litigant to file his case. Investigate the section and allow the court to fill in the errors. Additional evidence of appeal should also be included in this case. It should have a direct and significant effect. The option of allowing such additional evidence should be rarely exercised, in an unknown order of any kind. Was not illegal, malicious, or impaired The plaintiff's modification was indicated The review was rejected under the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
