MALIK FURKAN AHMAD versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, LAHORE
Section 11 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Petition was supported by the petitioner's Family Court order under which the right to present the petitioner's arguments was stopped and the court order thereafter. It was withdrawn before the applicant rejected the request. The order was approved, but its witnesses were present in the court. If the court was not willing to postpone the trial, it should have recorded the evidence of the existing witnesses, but it had no justification for closing the applicant's evidence. Was not due to this possibility. The prejudice of the applicant's case, which was strengthened and the petitioner's request for a closure order to close his evidence, was to be decided together; the court erroneously rejected the wrong view that the applicant submitted the evidence. Wasted three opportunities to do so. At one hearing date, the applicant failed to present his evidence and his witnesses were present on the next date, but his lawyer was absent because the orders passed by the Family Court High were set aside by the Family Court. With guidance the court should provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to present his evidence and then decide the eligibility matters in accordance with L. Wool
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
