Find a Lawyer

ZAHRO versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.G. KHAN

A. XI, R6 and AXXIII, R1 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application for return of nomination, application before the due date for proof, the plaintiff filed a petition to withdraw the case through another lawyer and Enter your statement in it. The court said that the complaint was resolved by the defendants, on the same day another petition was made by the plaintiff through his original counsel, before any order was made by the court on his first statement. Prior to the trial, it was decided to go to trial after recording another statement of the plaintiff after the trial. And the Defendant's District Judge Pliya dismissed the review filed against this order for evidence, earlier requesting permission to withdraw the case and dismissing the trial warrant under Oli XI, R6, CPC. Was guaranteed to do. Accuracy Prior to this the statement of the plaintiff was not final as no order was issued by the court after it was made by another state to continue the case on its behalf. XI, R 6, shall not be equivalent to admission under CPC, nor can the petitioner's bindings be admissible or there is no admission document in which the admission will admit. No admission was made by the plaintiff to allow the court to prosecute the plaintiff and it was in his favor to withdraw his earlier statement and at the same time bring the case to trial. I was not shown any meaningful and plausible explanation as to why a request was made by another lawyer. For the plaintiff law websites from Samundri lawyer