PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY KA/NA DIVISION versus LATIF SHAH
Failure to Produce A XVII, R 3 Proof of Principle of Preventing the Preparation of Evidence Principle Both the lower courts barred the applicants from producing evidence, allowing the petitioner a special opportunity for payment of heavy costs. Was gone, but they failed to present their proof. For a substantial period of 8 years, the law and equity always supported the decision of the merits, and each party was given appropriate time for that purpose, enabling them to present their own relevant evidence. The period provided for in the law can never be extended. The wisdom and wisdom of the Legislature in the true sense of the law in favor of a particular party for the expiry of the term was to provide the parties with the opportunity to prepare their evidence in a timely manner for a fair end to the matter. Here are some explanatory clauses. Neither strength nor lightweight was to be implemented, but when it would be equally implemented, like the second clause in Code Order XVII, R 3, CPC required that whenever a situation existed, As the party was neglecting and causing delay, it was revealed that the applicants did not take advantage of the occasion. Appeals for solicitors' pleas for applicants to provide another opportunity, even after the trial court and the appellate court's order for another 8 years, are not ready for any party to act and, moreover, serious injustice. And vice versa. Losing and taking advantage of the opportunities provided under the law to make no mistake in this case is always a legal matter in this case.
