Find a Lawyer

MULSIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED versus MESSRS GAFCOLOR (PAKISTAN) LIMITED

Sections 6 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XVII, R 3 filed for non-production of suit proof for recovery of debt amount were rejected by the case for evidence of the parties after the formation of the cases. Many cases were postponed and subsequent dates were adjourned to prepare their evidence on the joint request of the parties. The bank's lawyer was out of the country on a previous date, ie, 179 1995, but a banker The officer who appeared to present the evidence, which he did not have, applied for a postponement; And the case 12 to record evidence from the last time the status was suspended in 1995 and 1995, the date when the case was removed at the request of the Bank was not given the time of legality. Therefore, the provisions of OXVII, R 3, CPC were neither applicable nor the plaintiff's right to present evidence does not attract or conclude the judgment and consequently the case. Exclusion was not sustainable in law. tax advocates from Rawala Kot lawyer