O XVII, R 3 Deletion of nomination filed for non-production of evidence despite continuous delays Scope of the Scope XVI, excluded for non-proof of proof despite numerous delays under the provisions of R 3, C. The PC appeals court rejected his order saying that the trial court had upheld which order of the appellate court to be supported by the defendants. The validity of the case diary made it clear that the request for the presiding officer's hearing to be postponed before the date of dismissal was also submitted by the defendants. Such dismissal of the case was not guaranteed under the dismissal, OXVII, R 3, CPC because the case was not postponed until the date of the plaintiff's request, in the present case, after the matters were settled. The plaintiffs and documents examined by the state witnesses were brought to the record, therefore, the trial court needed to speak to the trial court to say that the evidence was brought to the record by the plaintiff. But no such search was made. The appeals court rejected the trial court's review granted by the trial court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
