Sec 12, 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VIII, R 10 Suit Occupation, Declaration, Permanent Order Probation and Mason Profit on two occasions for failure to file written statement by defendant prosecutor Defendant Applications for the extension of have been moved. Submitting written statement / objection etc. The second application, which was filed 21 days after the first application, was dismissed and a verdict was made in favor of the plaintiff, the entire exercise was completed within 21 days, and the trial court's conduct did. It was pointed out that neither the defendant was given time nor the last opportunity, only one postponement was routinely approved for filing the written statement, but the trial court did not use that impression. That was the last chance to file a written statement. Or that the rial trial court will not be afforded any further opportunity, in which case, defendant's defense was not justified in stopping, the trial court's such proceedings, without imposition of mind and violation of law Applied clause. According to the decree, it was necessary for the trial court to look at the trial and the memorandum of documentation so that they could arrive at the correct conclusion whether they were admissible or unacceptable in evidence and if the trial court had to reach that conclusion. There is a good reason for the competence of the plaintiff, in which case, he had to make a decision and order, the provisions of the defense in the trial case required more care. Since it will block one party for its defense and in practice it will do justice to the parties.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
