Find a Lawyer

GULZAR HUSSAIN versus BUSHRA BEGUM

CPC Adjustment A XVII, R 3 of the Civil Procedure Code Order XVII, R3 and Section 115 Proof of Act (I of 1872), the evidence of the Chapter V revision proof of the document, whether the respondents' evidence, in the absence of a rejection, It is sufficient to pass this decree on the scrutiny of the evidence which was not the work of the High Court in review, however, the defect on its face encountered the defect that the district judge declared it to be a family matter. It is claiming that it is not bound by the technicalities of the Evidence Act. And the documents were accepted, not relied upon or formally presented in evidence, without any proof of technicality. Such an assumption was misconstrued, instead it was a regular civil suit in which formal documents such as relying on evidence or evidence were essentially entertaining. By the District Judge, they stopped their application to consider the nature of the matter or applied their mind or refused to close the applicants in any other way under XVII, R 3, CPC. In the irrelevant decision of the evidence, the total absence of debate in this regard, self-speaking and the patent being illegal, had to leave an unnecessary verdict and injunction and the case was remanded to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision. family advocate from Jehlum lawyer