Find a Lawyer

GUL BIBI versus SURAYYA BEGUM

Failure to present the trial evidence for AXVII, R3 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 454 and 55 Permanent / Compulsory Order, while recording the evidence, the defendant after recording the statements of three witnesses, further evidence Wanting to present, but their application was rejected as well as the trial court dismissed and the appellate court closed to present the remaining evidence as the defendant's evidence was closed, e.g. According to the trial court, the case was postponed to his request for adjournment. The case was made by the plaintiff due to the instability of his lawyer, which was not opposed by the defendants, the plaintiff was not warned that they would not be given any further opportunity to present evidence. But the costs were also not imposed. The penal provisions of RX, O XVII, R 3, CPC could not be demanded. News of the High Court proving its case to be conducted immediately under false orders, which does not mean that the rights of the parties should be curtailed by incorrectly enforcing the provisions of the law which would otherwise Were not applicable. 1998, 10 10 The case was not decided until 1998 and it faced more than two incident dates, thus providing another opportunity to settle the case a few days later, through the High Court. Nothing could go against the direction issued by the hay. The High Court was taken to deprive the defendants of the right to present their evidence, which is known to the administration of justice. famous high court advocate from Daulat Pur lawyer