Find a Lawyer

RIAZ HUSSAIN versus SARDAR RIAZ HUSSAIN

The IX, R 13 and O XVII, R 3 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), while the 12th suit set aside the preceding Parliament's order for specific performance, the defendants set aside the former party decree against it. The request was moved and the request was removed. Appeal Court upheld the trial court's decision of the trial court when the evidence was closed by the trial court for failure to present the defendant's evidence. The trial court's accuracy order sheet showed that the defendant had been given ample opportunity to present his evidence and, on 20 6, 2002, when the evidence was not available again, the defendant's lawyer requested the case. It was delayed with clear indication for 9 2002 that the defendant's lawyer was present on the said date but neither the defendant nor the evidence was available. The record does not show that on the day of any non-production of evidence. The explanation was given by the defendant's lawyer or by a request for further adjournment. Therefore, in these circumstances there was no illegal motion by the trial court to close the defendant's evidence and dismiss his request for proof. Or weakness and consequently sustained best advocate from Turbat lawyer