7th XVII, R 3 and section 12 (2) closure of evidence The application under section 12 (2) of the former party decree, after the defendant filed a petition for separation of the former party decree, he anticipated Deferred and failed. The plaintiff's argument for the direction of the evidence was that under section 12 (2) the application should be decided on merit and it should not be dismissed on technical grounds. The defendant was vigilant after filing the case. Didn't happen Section 12 (2), filed under CPC, the plaintiff failed to appear and proceed to the trial, especially in section 12 (2), with the application under CPC and for the transfer of the case Instantly move requests, including requests. The plaintiff had not missed a single opportunity to seek the plaintiff's pending disclosure by DairySheets, proving that there could be no second opinion. The fact is that the plaintiff was avoiding proceedings before the trial court before the trial, and the trial court had granted them sufficient delay that the requirements of justice demanded that the cases be settled on merit rather than technical knock. It must be decided, however, that in the present case the plaintiff, with his frame of mind and manner of conduct, was not entitled to any exploitation and equality, to be cautious and to suffer instability in any unknown order. Illegally unavailable revisions were excluded, in the circumstances
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
