Find a Lawyer

FAZAL HUSSAIN versus NAWAB DIN

Section 12 of the Appeal to Special Relief Act (I of 1877) relating to CLC Rule Order XPL Original Decisions O XLI, R 27 and Section 115, Additional Proof Suits That Contract for Sale of Discharge by the Trial Court of Appeal Allows the plaintiff to present additional evidence for the specific performance of the trial court's review of the evidence against the defendant who filed the remand, neither the original contract to sell evidence nor the witness who was alleged Nothing was said about the non-production of the original contract for sale, based on the allegedly present at the time of contract execution. ? In the application for the preparation of additional evidence, no good ground was shown at the trial for its non-production. The fact is that the original contract could not be submitted because of the negligence of the prosecuting attorney. Before the trial court, it was difficult to allow the plaintiff to present additional evidence. The remand of any matter cannot be obtained to provide only the negligent party an opportunity to fill the vacancy arising out of the order, otherwise violating O XLI, R 27, Civil Code of Conduct, 1908. It was illegal to do so, even if the conditions for allowing additional evidence to be satisfied are satisfied, the appellate court itself must file additional evidence. Or directed the trial court to take such evidence and send it to the appellate court, there is no mere jurisdiction to determine the trial court's decision simply because some additional evidence is recorded in court so as to produce additional evidence. Cannot allow. Review, pending remand law firms from Ugoki lawyer