NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER MOTORWAY versus HAJI SHAH AHMAD KHAN
AXVII, Rr 1 (3) and 3 Twenty-three (23) result in non-submission of evidence by the defendant despite receiving motions, some of which incur costs and warnings, to present evidence for such failure. The plaintiff's right to prosecute is that before the date of the hearing, ie, 20 6 2012, when the evidence was closed, the previous hearing date was 16 6 2012, the day the lawyers were on strike and the cases were adjourned by the court. , Thus, such an earlier postponement was not accepted on his offer. And the penal provisions of OXVII, R 3, CPC cannot be appealed against. 16 The previous order of 2012 was marked by the presence of the defendant's lawyer, when the trial court could not record the evidence due to the lawyers' strike. The defendant was deliberately and conciliatory in the relevant history, thus, the trial court had no choice but to refuse further adjournment and to close its evidence, the trial court specifically reserved the provisions of OXVII. The unauthorized order was not passed by applying. , R 3, CPC but the same was passed in view of the provision of R 1 (3), which the High Court dismissed for the amendment of the limit.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
