Sections 114, 115, AIX, RR 3, 4, O XVII, RR 2, 3 and XLVII, R 1 on the postponement date of the hearing for the temporary applicant applying for the retrial of the case for illegal prosecution. Absent evidence of both parties dismissing such application by the trial court for illegal prosecution and non-production of evidence On the same day, the application for restoration of the dismissal application, which was rejected by the competent applicant, was granted a trial. The Court denied that their application for restitution of such dismissal could be applied under OX, R 4, CPC because The date of the hearing on his request was not approved on the previous date the respondents have been requested or used in O XVII, R 2, shall have the amount of CPC and will have the authority to dismiss the court. Thus, on the basis of legal prosecution and simultaneous evasion of evidence, the impugned order was valid. Using the options under O XVII, R 3, the CPC record must show that the date before it was obtained by the default party, otherwise the right to direct its proof is discontinued. Can't be The court does not have the authority to issue any other order because it thinks the fit will be related to an issue in which some material was available on record as evidence, in the absence of the plaintiff and anyone. The evidence on record, the provisions of O XVII, R 3, CPC, will not apply, but instead R 2 will be drawn and should be applied by the court. The record shows that the petitioner's request was not postponed on the previous date.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
