Find a Lawyer

SHAH ALAM versus ASADULLAH

A. XVI, RI and Section 115 Appealing to the witnesses and the presence of witnesses, the applicant / Plaintiff had raised the burden of presenting his evidence, but he applied to the witnesses as a court to issue summons to the witnesses. Unable to ban request from. OXVI, R1, CPC was denied a valid request under Production Order XVI, Rule 1, CPC, submitted at a later stage to the court, which can be denied if it is clear That it is unfortunate, serious or funny and there is no good reason. Given that, otherwise the petition could have been granted even though initially the applicant had taken the initiative to testify on his own facts, it would appear that the applicant initially accepted the responsibility of presenting his witnesses. And then after receiving numerous postponements, the matter moved on. The court's request for witnesses to be summonsed by the argument that the witnesses refused to appear in court was well-known by the testimony that Almas had a very high position in the society and it seemed impossible for the applicant to appear in court. The compulsion to attend was shown by the applicant in the petition under O XVI, R 1, CPC seemed to be a good cause so the request was made by the above courts as per Order XVI Rule 1, CPC Failure to apply in accordance with the law, therefore, the Chief Court adjourned the case, putting aside unwanted decisions and orders. Maundy obtained. female advocates from Jhal Magsi lawyer