Find a Lawyer

INAYAT ULLAH versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD

O XVII, R 3 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), on the due date for the plaintiff's proof of section 42 suit for the elimination of evidence, deferred his offer to the plaintiff because his evidence was not available. Was granted, eleven were postponed, and on four occasions it was warned that this would be a final opportunity and the plaintiff was also charged on three dates for not presenting such evidence. Despite the delay, the plaintiff failed to present his evidence, his evidence was closed and his case dismissed. O XVII, R 3, CPC were legitimate and arbitrary claimants who compromised not to present evidence, it cannot be assumed that O XVII, R 3, arbitration in seeking the exemptions of the CPC suit. As a 6y trial court was used. The plaintiff was rightly dismissed by the trial court for lack of evidence; the appeal against the trial court's order was also dismissed by the appellate court's reasonable order which has been granted by the appellate court, Is not vulnerable to Cannot be interfered with by the High Court law firms from Parachinar lawyer