Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV, RR 1, 2, 3 and 5, Claiming Claims for Disposal of Matters Defendants in their written statement exclude the plaintiff's claim I was asked to do this. Although the trial court made six cases in the account of the parties involved, it was neglected to say that the two material issues raised by the plaintiff in their written statement were decided by the trial court, but the appellate court ruled. After framing the case was remanded, stating that counsel's counsel for the plaintiff to seek additional evidence for the two-issue trial was that the matters were framed under OXIV, R 3, CPC. Was not mandatory and that there was no legal justification for the remand of the case. Reportedly, because once the plaintiff had raised material issues in his written statement. In particular, the issue of limitation, which was a mixed question of law and fact, it was the duty of the trial court to set specific issues in order to keep the parties at once comfortable with the pro and contradictory evidence. Can help guide Of course, the trial court spoke to some extent, after realizing material irregularities, but without such discussion, without having the opportunity to be a party to a particular issue and to give the parties an opportunity to present evidence in this regard. Was not a legal, appropriate and justifiable case. Before approving the decree, the court should have resorted to the provisions of OXIV, R5, CPC and should have avoided the decision of the court without taking any issue, in which case, by setting the relevant issues and remanding the case. Enough gambling to fill a legal gap
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
