GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. versus HUSSAIN MIR N. COMPANY
A. VII, R 2, O IX, Rr 6 and 13 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 and Article 164 Suites, Former Part Decree for Recovery of Amount Limit, One of the Defendants by the Defendant Upon entering one of the defendants, while the other defendants were prosecuted after presenting their cases against the former Particle and Trial Court, the parties were required to record the examination under the head of one of the plaintiff's witnesses. The case was later adjourned for cross-examination of the witness, directing the trial court to present its relevant evidence. Due date of adjournment, proceedings against former parties were taken while the defendants were absent. And the previous fictitious injunction was passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and the trial court granted the order by the defendant to keep the ex parte decree filed by the defendant in the affirmative order. The Plaintiff was outraged at the unpleasant order to keep the former party order separate. During the previous judgment and the order's approval, the trial court had completely closed its eyes and there was no possibility that the court would have even looked at the contents of the plaintiff. Otherwise the decree for such a large sum would not have been approved in the presence of too many records. And they too, without any evidence as the evidence had not yet been filed, also took notice of the fact that in its unidentified order, the parties were given full opportunity in view of the law set by the higher courts. The do-and-do technique was avoided. Complete justice; and that the conduct of one of the defendants was of a watchful party
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
