A. XVII, Rr 3 and 1 (3) of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), section 12 suit for specific performance of the contract, the elimination of evidence XVII, Rr 1 (3) and 3 were directory in nature of the evidence. No penalty was imposed on the non-petition, the court can decide the case on that day and the court wanted to move the matter according to law. The basis of the material available on the record provisions of O. XVII, R 3, CPC was applied when the claim was sought by the plaintiff in the date before the date of the final order when such other party There was no objection to the postponement of, so it cannot be assumed that the adjournment was decided by the party who had sought the same petition for postponement of the date before the final order, the plaintiff. The lawyer of the other side who did not object to the trial court on the other hand. Without the TA, the King, noting that the previous date of the hearing was not raised by the other side, the provisions of O. XVII, R 3, CPC were summoned and the trial of the case without the knowledge of the matter was taken to the court. Was bound to make the decision. In the matter of releasing material of record and its results, the trial court was not justified in discontinuing the right to proof of the plaintiff, but was unable to decide on any merit other than the techniques. The judgment and the orders passed by both the courts below were set aside. A remand for a new verdict was obtained after confirming the last and last chance to present evidence
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
