The dismissal of the facts of the case for the provisions of 42 & Code 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 8 19088), O. VII, R 11 suit and for a permanent injunction have not been mentioned and it has been filed by the two courts The lawsuit filed by was dismissed. Also, the trial court dismissing the plaintiff on the accuracy of the lower appellate court found that the case was established by the plaintiff through his lawyer, while the plaintiff himself had testified by the plaintiff. And not through a lawyer from whom the trial court collected such information. Or the alleged power of attorney's presence for this matter was not obtained from the available records. This is a huge irregularity imposed by both the courts, which were not dealt with by the parties under oral submissions by the courts, while rejecting the petitions dismissing the provisions of OVII. Was rejected. , R11, CPC but in the event of a dispute that was brought to the record on the basis of the rigor or the written statement, the appropriate course would be the facts or the law, to decide the matter on such questions and in the light of the evidence. The same decision was to be made on the merits, thus any leave would be equivalent to depriving a person of his or her legitimate right, the order of rejection of the plaintiff approved by both was set aside by the following courts. And after the trial, the court confirmed the opportunity for record of professional and contradictory evidence and after hearing the arguments from both parties. The trial court was remanded for a re-qualification decision.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
