Find a Lawyer

ABDUL KHALIQ versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD

A-XVII, R-3 Special Relief Act (of 1877), after the formation of the Section 12 suit case for the specific performance of the contract, the case was adjourned for proof of the plaintiff, although the plaintiff's two witnesses in court on the postponement date of the hearing. Their evidence could not be recorded as the court was engaged in some other matters on that day, the court adjourned the hearing of the accused witnesses in the court adjourned the trial and other oral evidence of the plaintiff approved by the court. Not according to the law because when the case was adjourned. Because the court was engaged in some other matters, there could be no punitive action against the plaintiff under the provisions of O XVII, R 3, the CPC trial court should have merely adjourned the case for recording all the evidence of the plaintiff, Despite the fact that the plaintiff had few witnesses. Not present in court When the case was adjourned, at least the plaintiff should have had the opportunity to present testimony; he intended to set aside the order of the illegally approved trial court. Was granted and the plaintiff was given one last chance to present complete evidence us immigration advocates from Sara e Naurang lawyer