O XVII, R 3 Plaintiff's case for possession of a plot under the title of Plaintiff's case was determined by the Plaintiff bringing his evidence which was not recorded as the Presiding Officer of the Court was busy with his election duty at a later date. The parties were also present with evidence The case was adjourned to affect the agreement between the parties, but the case stated that it would provide the last opportunity for the preparation of evidence so the defendants' evidence was not available. Therefore, it was closed under Order XVII Rule 3, the CPC suit was dismissed and the appeal against the order also failed. Um done. Accuracy Neither the case was adjourned on the request of the defendants nor the orders of the respondents were opposed, XVII Rule 3, CPC was not applicable on the issue on which the review request was accepted. , The decisions and orders of both the courts were set aside. After giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to present their evidence, the defendants' trial was returned to the trial court for judgment.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
