MIAN ABDUL KARIM versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) LODHRAN
O XVII, Rr 3 and 1 (3) Act of Land Acquisition (I of 1894), Section 18 The closure of the evidence cited was sufficiently jurisdictional because of the date when the right to present evidence was discontinued. No date was given so the referee court rejected the plaintiff's right to close the evidence. There is no provision that the default party should not be requested to attract the provisions of OXVII, R3, which was mentioned by the CPC in the said clause with this case. Only proceedings where sufficient cause for postponement was not disclosed when the plaintiff's prior date when the evidence of the plaintiff was not available were not available on his special request O XVII, R 3, to present the evidence to the plaintiff. Repeated and liberal adjournments were granted for those who failed to present them, nor were any issues referred to the plaintiff in favor of them. f Neither the appeal of the memorandum nor the absence of evidence on that day when it was closed was the result of the negligence of the plaintiff. The law will help those who were cautious and uncontrollable enough to pursue the cause. Had to be understood independently. It was important to keep in mind the element of justice but the facts of the case were not sufficient to pay the plaintiff's premium, the evidence closed to the trial court under O XVII, R 1 (3) instead of O XVII, R 3, CPC. Should be. Subsequent decisions and decree not to interfere with the appeal were dismissed, while the amendments to these clauses closed the evidence.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
