O XVII, R 3 North West Frontier Province Pre-Impression Act (X of 1987), Clauses 6 and 13 suit pre-arrest evidence and jurisdiction to exclude, on the due date for recording of oral evidence The case was adjourned to pay the costs, there was no date for the defendant's hearing to be adjourned, while the witness and the plaintiff's lawyer were present and the evidence could not be recorded, on the postponement date of the hearing. , There was no evidence of the plaintiff. The present and final opportunity was given that the plaintiff's evidence was present on the postponement date of the hearing, however the plaintiff was not present and the case was adjourned and the witnesses were present on the postponement date of the hearing, but due to the strike by the Bar Council From, the trial could not be reached by the trial court and the trial was adjourned. The date of the hearing was present by the plaintiff and his witnesses, but his lawyer was busy. Subsequently, the Supreme Court and the evidence could not be recorded and the unclean order of the trial defendant to exclude the trial was granted. In the circumstances, there was little evidence of wrongdoing and he was personally present in court. But for some, the proceedings cannot be held for two reasons, for unexpected reasons where neither the party nor its lawyer had deliberately defaulted, but for some compelling reason the court had this in mind. Whether the party was to be suspended or punished. Action may be postponed. The provisions contained in O XVII, R 3, CPC were not mandatory in nature, but are arbitrary, however, arbitration should be in accordance with the principles of law,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
