O XVII R 3, [Lahore High Court Amendment] O XVII R 1 (3)] Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 42 and 54 of the Declaration of Procedure and Permanent Order Prohibition closed by the trial court under OXVII. ? R 3, the CPC's continued suspension after the absence of evidence after which the case was dismissed, the defendant's admission was that since the case was not adjourned at the request of the plaintiff, therefore, the CPCCO's The penal provisions of R 3 of XVII will not be accepted. Such a fact was not sufficient to reject the trial court's order in view of such fact O XVII, R 1 (3) (Lahore High Court Amendment), which, where there was no good reason for the grant. Gone. After an adjournment, the trial court will soon hear the case and close evidence of the plaintiff text of O. XVII, R1 (3) (Lahore High Court Amendment) and CPC's O. XVII R3 in its entirety. There were various impressions used in R 3 of O XVII, CPC but the above expression was not mentioned in CPC XVII R 1 (3) (Lahore High Court Amendment) and XVII R 3. The provisions, CPC were therefore not attracted to the facts of the case that the evidence could be closed. Despite the eleven opportunities granted [the Lahore High Court Amendment] to the exercise of powers under CPCO's XVII R 1 (3), the plaintiff failed to present evidence and no justification was given by the plaintiff for the proof. The order related to the closure is considered to refer to the provision of law (O XVII, RC 3) under Rule 1 (3) CPC (Lahore High Court Amendment) trial court under XVII, which is not enforceable. Was. By itself, it was not enough to pay the claimant premium the amendment was rejected
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
