HAJI MUHAMMAD TUFAIL versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL
O XVI, R 1, O XVIII, RR 2, 4 & O XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 were adjourned to record the evidence of the plaintiff after framing the case for recovery of the amount of the suit. I present to the plaintiff with my witnesses when it was raised that the list of witnesses in the case of OXVI, R1, CPC was not filed by the plaintiff, examining his testimony in court. Could not be done, which would have led to a difference in accuracy. In the presence of CPC witnesses, between terms call and output, O XVIII, Rr 2 and 4, CPC, comparing the provisions of O XVII, R 1, CPC with the terms of O XVII, RR 2 and 4, CPC Can be checked according to the provisions of After the amendment of the High Court (Lahore) the production of words was inserted in OXVI, R1, CPC, without amending the provisions of OXVIII, CPC RR2 and 4, the situation would remain the same. Which will deal with the testimony of the witnesses in court. O XVIII, the original form of the CPC RR2 and 4 that were intact
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
law firms from Ludhan lawyer
