Find a Lawyer

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN versus ABDUL MAJEED

Application under section 12 (2) and OXVII, R 3 section 12 (2), for non-production of evidence on several earlier dates by the CPC applicant to set aside the consent decree, On the basis of which he wanted to present evidence, the NAB dismissed the evidence of the applicants in the pending reference and dismissed the petition under Section 12 (2) of the CPC, suing him for his failure to stand trial. Despite the numerous opportunities to present evidence, the trial court upheld the unconstitutional order of the petitioner without the finding of fact and error of right granted to the adjournment trial, pending the inquiry of the case. And in this case the applicant was able to show a reasonable / reasonable cause, then he was entitled to further adjournment, there could not have been a previous opportunity to present significant evidence on his own merits and circumstances. Applicant has already shown sufficient cause for postponement of eligibility pending adjournment on the date of approval of non-hearing order, the applicant should have provided the applicant some time for trial. The court will provide the applicant with the opportunity to present evidence us immigration advocates from FR Bannu / Lakki lawyer