A XXXVII, RR 1, 2 and O VII, R 11 suit for recovery of money on the basis of the dismissal of the case investigation, the written statement for the plaintiff was filed and the defendant thereafter O VII, R 11 Filed an application for rejection of the claimant under The defendant's request was dismissed, the CPC, claiming that the case was banned, to be valid in the appeal. The limitation question in this case was a mixed question when the question in question was for disclosure. Was presented and was dishonored, so these facts were also required to record the evidence to prove the same defendant, although he did not accept the limitations request in the written statement, but at any time during the proceedings. The question of law can be raised which was a question of limitation, which should be a mixed question of law and facts. After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court should have decided these matters in light of the parties' requests and asked the parties to present their respective evidence. ce; and thereafter, the trial court should have decided the petition to reject the Plaintiff's order passed by the trial court under R.O. 11, CPC, in which case it was directed that the initial. Compile the issue at the point of limitation and after recording its evidence. The parties decide the request for the defendant, filed under Seventh, R 11, CPC
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
