O XLI, R 27 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 suit for exclusion of additional evidence in the requirements of the appellate court was dismissed, against which an application for additional evidence was filed, Appellate Court affirmed. Evidence of the documents submitted by the petitioner was already submitted while other documents were neither relied upon nor stated that the documents contained any reference to the plaintiff in the mere decision of the case. How such a document was necessary. The appellate court mentioned in the application for the production of evidence was presented for the first time because the offer document did not benefit. It appeared that the revenue was derived from the revenue record and such revenue record was always Was available so the document was tampered with which required another inquiry that is neither guaranteed nor appropriate if the plan of not to present the document of evidence if appropriate. Appeal Court was reluctant to enjoy the plea for the preparation of evidence; The material on the record before the Court was not braided inadequate treatment. The merit was not required to try to sue the document for it to enable the appellate court to render a decision so that the court itself would require evidence and exercise such power in the interest of justice and not to seize the weak. For the purpose of ACLI, R-27, CPC were not attracted to the present case to allow the matter or vacancies to be filled, no matter the High Court
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
