A VII, R 2 and O XVII, R 3 suit was filed by the trial court for a collision with the defendant in favor of recovery, and a case was settled for evidence of the defendants whose hearing was adjourned. When the defendants were absent, the defendants were given an opportunity to pay the costs and the case was adjourned, on the date of hearing of the evidence of the defendants not available, A XVII, R 3, CPC Notice was given under and the case was settled for proof of proof. The defendants were not available on the said date, their right to defend was terminated and it was decided to sue. In that date when the defendant's defense was attacked, neither the defendant was present nor The evidence was there and the trial court proceeded against them under OXVII. , R 3, CPC and Defendants' defense were dismissed TY and only two opportunities could be provided in the absence of evidence and then the services of OXVII, R 3, CPC. Disapproved verdict reveals that the trial court did not discuss and did not discuss the evidence of the defendant's presence. Defendants' evidence does not mean that whatever was presented in the form of evidence by the plaintiff was to be admissible, the court is bound to review and examine the evidence and thereafter to form an opinion. No such efforts have been made by the courts below, decisions and orders are unpleasant. By not giving defendants an appropriate opportunity to present evidence, the trial court erred and denied the defense.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
