HAJI MUHAMMAD RIAZ-UL-HASSAN versus WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE
Appeal against the Trial Court of Truth for the preparation of evidence of A. XVII, RR 2 and 3 and O IX Land Acquisition Act (I9 1894), sections 18 and 54, under which reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Filed, terminated. The right of the appellants for the preparation of evidence was decided in this case for the recording of the evidence of Patwari Mallya, who was summoned on the occasion of the appellants, who submitted his food money to Patwari Mally, which appeared in court. It was time enough for this to be reviewed, but on a date when it did not appear, the notice was given to the appellant under A. XVII, R 3, CPC, although in this case the trial of the Patwari constituency. The lawsuit was made for. To get Patwari's presence as the appellant deposited his food money because Patwari was the official witness and needed to be summoned by the court, the case for recording of the evidence was postponed and for that date Was set for the date. Evidence of Patwari and the oral evidence of the appellants, neither the Appellant appeared in the court nor any evidence was presented, in such a situation resorting to the supply of R3 of the OXVII under Rule 2 of the CPC Instead of taking action. , The CPC trial court improperly enforced the R3 provisions of the OXVII, CPC, because Patwari's statement was yet to be completed because there was no material available on record to dismiss the case. It was said that the provisions were not compulsory, but they were legitimate and arbitrary in nature. The provisions are being punishable, they should be strictly banned and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
