GHULAM MUSTAFA versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
The dismissal of the case for non-production of evidence of A. XVII, R3 shows that the plaintiff's case was not postponed to his request as on the previous date the party is being punished under the provisions of O XVII, R3. , CPC needed to present evidence in court. Or failed to do any other work to advance the case, but the court failed to do what could have provided the defendant with numerous opportunities to present evidence, and it may be possible to apply the provisions of OXVII, R3. There will be a significant date for the CPC, from which the case was finally adjourned and in the present case, this important date was postponed due to the death of some lawyer of the Bar Association. Cannot be attributed to the plaintiffs because the plaintiff's case was not postponed to their request on a previous date. , Competent provisions, pending, appeal was accepted and case remand was obtained
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
when you need a advocate from Khair Pur Mir lawyer
