O XVI, Rr, 1, 2 and O XVII, R 3 Defendant's request to conclude evidence on the defendant's failure to present evidence that he was postponed for the preparation of evidence and the relevant date A witness appeared, while the other witnesses were not present when the court sought to obtain them, though he had already deposited diet money and students in his name as per the trial court order. Was obliged to attend, therefore, could not be closed if the evidence was not issued or non-issued. Receipt of the moderation issued by the court's court found that the defendant had deposited food money and summons in the name of the witnesses on the same day when the court granted permission to seek them. Discharged his liability, so the trial court was bound to issue proceedings in the name of such witnesses, since the remand of such witnesses was ineligible because the evidence of the postponement of the trial was dismissed. This is because the order was submitted by the court for the deposit of food and the process fee for seeking witnesses for that date. S which was submitted with the further postponement was refused. The trial court was dissatisfied with the jurisdiction of the High Court, which accepted the review request and set aside the defamation order and directed the trial court to give the witnesses a special order relating to their services. 7 (A) or R8. And XVI, CPC
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
