O XVII, R 3 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Articles 8, 42, 54 and 55, Failure to present evidence to the plaintiff during trial for possession, declaration, permanent and prohibited injunction, trial During the various occasions that the defendant failed to present his evidence, since the case was repeatedly delayed at the request of the plaintiff and finally warned under OXVII, R 3, the CPC sought to present the evidence to the plaintiff. Was granted, which failed to show that despite such clear indications, the right to present evidence would be waived. The plaintiff failed to present its evidence and on the important date the plaintiff's sons preferred the plea for their enforcement in the case, only to delay the settlement of the case, the trial court decided on O XVII, R 3 was obliged to enforce the provisions of CPC. Defendant's defense, which upheld the trial court record decision as a result of filing a lawsuit as well as applying to the appellate court for trial, was indicative of the fact that the plaintiff did not have one. The courts below presented their evidence in a timely manner, pursuing their purpose; in the circumstances, the plaintiff was not properly sued; both the courts filed concurrent conclusions on the question of law and fact, with no exception. There was no illegal, irregular or jurisdictional fault. Defective results have been identified by petitioner's lawyer, who may justify interference by the High Court in his revised jurisdiction.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
