Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O VII, R 11 The scope of dismissal of the extension of the case for the specific performance of the contract was not capable of being barred at the time of trial. Plaintiffs were considered to determine the cause of the disclosure but were not the sole criteria for this purpose; statements and documents that exist to determine the cause of action could be processed. Consider at any stage of the proceedings of the case when the placenta should be rejected when the reason for its rejection is present and may be rejected in the upper and later stages of the amendment, the scope of O VII, R 11, The CPC was limited to the purpose of protecting the defense party from the hassle of a lengthy trial in civil cases behind the dismissal of the plaintiff, thus saving time for the court. The provision of such law should be exercised only when the courts have come to the conclusion that even if the proceedings in the case are proved, the plaintiff will not be relieved nor will the case be adjourned. Will have some useful purpose. The question of limitation was considered as a mixed question of law and fact, and its determination required the recording of evidence, but in all cases the question of limitation was clear in the present case and no evidence would be sought. The plaintiff later filed a special performance lawsuit. 12/13 years after the defendants filed for partition, which was time-barred, both parties were joint partners and the plaintiffs were enjoying possession of the joint property order passed by the trial court.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
