Find a Lawyer

M.S. RAWALPINDI GENERAL HOSPITAL versus RAJA MUHAMMAD FAREEDON

A XVI, R 7 A&O XVII, R 3 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), after recording the evidence of the defendants in the trial court for section 54 permanent injunction, evidence of the petition by the defendant To record, the fixed case was allowed by the trial court and the defendant to record witnesses' money money, along with other official costs, but the trial court sought, without waiting for the witnesses, the defendant's closed evidence and The trial court also dismissed the appeal against the order based on the evidence available on the record. The learned plaintiff summoned the required witness through the process court, such as submitting the money to the trial court's Diet Money and in addition to submitting the required witness by his own action, the accused was also directed to serve the witness. OXVI, R 7A, on its duty in the CPC trial court, however, in view of the fact that the closing of the eighth, the RCP, the CPC, the defendant's evidence at the time of proceedings under the OX. And didn't care to inquire whether the witnesses or the recordkeeper had been tried or not, if the witnesses had served. Not affected, there may be no defamatory action against the defendant, but if there is a notice from the processor server that the witnesses are summoned, they cannot be supported by the defendant for any reason, even if Even under the circumstances, the defamation order was not valid. The present case was never given a final opportunity to present its evidence, nor was it given the opportunity to present the available evidence, which could be used as part of the court proceedings. immigration advocates from Dir lawyer