MST. SHAMIM ARA versus DISTRICT COORDINATOR THROUGH OFFICERS
A XVII, R and 2 and 3 were filed in 2006 for the elimination of the evidence and the cases were settled on 25 1 2007, after which the matter was adjourned for the plaintiff's evidence on each and the defendants. Prices were also imposed. Plaintiffs' instructions to submit evidence did not comply with this directive and the trial court was obliged to reject the request for adjournment The plaintiff's lawyer was pleased to write to the appellant to withdraw his authority, with the plaintiff not having left. Had lost interest too. When contacted by a lawyer who showed negligence and flexibility, the law advocated being vigilant and did not exhibit instability. No explanation was given on the record as to why the plaintiff did not contact the lawyer or in court. The rules and regulations that were not present were set out to be compliant, and no comprehensible or good record for cancellation was brought to the record, which would indicate that the plaintiffs or their witnesses were not present to some extent. There was no air control or the court discussed the material available on the record case, suit suitably CPCO XVII, R Excluded under 3
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
