GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, N.AS., GILGIT versus MUHAMMAD YOUNUS
Sections 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O XIV, RR 1, 2 and O XV, R 3 Sue for decision making and permanent injunction on documentary evidence without recording oral evidence about the evidence of the case, After framing issues, proceed to litigate the documentary evidence presented by both parties, the documentary evidence presented by the parties was sufficient to resolve all the issues and in this case it was not necessary to record the oral evidence and the case. The trial is under trial O. XV, R 3, CPC and the same appellate court will not apply the trial court's correctness order XV, R 3, CPC decisions and decree that require any documented documents or oral evidence to be headed under O XV. Will be. 3, the CPCs were available to settle any issue or issues which were purely law-related and sufficient to settle the matter. Finally, the trial court, in the circumstances, lost the XV, R3, the CPC. It was not permissible to apply for the parties to include their oral evidence in this case, when both law and factual matters were involved in the matter, there was no provision in the CPC which could authorize the judge. That they discourage a party from including oral evidence in the exercise of its discretionary scope, unless the party is able to incorporate oral evidence Having been cleared of any sanction from the jury, the trial court will promise to waive the right order, when it was said that the initial order was void and without jurisdiction. Orders will be in order or, as a result, Q&A
