Find a Lawyer

AMANULLAH KHAN versus MST. HAYAT BIBI

Read with O XVII, RR 2 and 3 O IX; Plaintiffs neither appeared nor presented evidence O IX, R 8 and O XVII, R for the evidence regarding the R8 pre-evidence case. 3, the provisions of the CPC were simultaneously sought for litigation against the plaintiffs where the parties failed, the court had the authority to take action under OIX, CPC Made a second order as he thought Order XVII, R 3, CPC applied only when a party in the suit had the opportunity to present evidence but failed. The attendance of the record of his witnesses proved that the date of the delay on which the defendants' claims were excluded for non-submission of evidence was the first date of their evidence and since the case was not postponed on request or by the plaintiff. The provisions of O. XVII, R 3, CPC were not applicable. He said that the provisions were appealed to the parties present before the court but he has committed any error which states that the rule The plaintiffs are not present, no preventive action has been taken under PR. There was no reasonable way for him to operate under OX, CPC, nor under XVII, R 3, CPC and court power as he deemed appropriate. is about. In the case in which some material on the record was available for decision on the terms of O XVII, R 3, CPC Merit III and in the absence of any material in the form of proof it was stated that upon returning to O IX the principle Should have been deserted, under Article XVII, R2 of CPC property advocates from Vehari lawyer