FAZAL DIN THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS versus MIR MUHAMMAD JAN
A. VIII, R11 and Section 141 The claim for dismissal of the plaintiff's jurisdiction for possession by division was that the plaintiff did not show cause for action, simultaneously accepting the request to dismiss the trial. Gone, only the contents of the plaintiff will be considered, while the defendant had the right to present the evidence in a fair trial and the case, in O. VIII, Rule 11, CPC, in which the cause of action was disclosed. The court will have to hold a judicial opinion on the merits of the court, assuming that the conditions in the plaintiff were true power. To put it in place, the CPC should be used only in a clear case in which the court concluded that even if the plaintiff's findings were proved by the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief. The trial court was not justified in rejecting the claim made in the written statement or the documents associated with it were to be ignored during the decision of the petition, under A VII, R 11, the CPC's violation of the parties. Cannot be considered as evidence when its creator was not examined in its support and was not examined by competing clauses of Section 141; If evidence was not required, record evidence on the question was required to justify the clauses of O VII, R 11 to justify the fact. Can not be r, PC trial court record and the evidence and decide by its decision on the facts, O VII, R 11 provisions, the PC can not be summoned. H
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
