Failure to initiate proceedings against a party under section XVII, R 3 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), sections 42 and 54 O XVII, R 3, CPC, and failure to present the necessary component suit evidence for a permanent injunction , The suit was dismissed. On the date of the adjournment hearing by the trial court and the appellate court, the plaintiff could not present its evidence on the next date of adjournment, when no one appeared by the plaintiff, before the trial, O XVII, There was no option but to take action under R. 3, CPC opportunities to fulfill the obligation - to present evidence or to cross-examine or to submit a written statement, had to be fair and reasonable and even one or two occasions under O XVII, R 3, the party. There may also be sufficient ingredients necessary to take action against. The CPCs were of the view that the date of the hearing should be in the knowledge of the party and that the time given for some work should be sufficient. And if postponed; demanded by a party, then there should be a plausible explanation for such a postponement. And it would not be illegal to have the court dismiss the plaintiff's case or take action against the defendants. If the court concludes that the relevant party is obstructing the proceedings, then the lawyer's argument for the plaintiffs was reasonable opportunity. ? The plaintiffs were not granted, were inadmissible and were not excluded from the record; the decision of the hearing and the order passed by both the courts which is well and in accordance with the law on the subject, no interference was sought and it was sought. Retained.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
