Find a Lawyer

GHULAM QADIR versus KUNDAN BIBI

Additional matters were compiled on Civil Procedure Code Order VII 5 and 1986 for the preparation of the documents, and the complaint of the plaintiffs, for CPC Plants O VII, R 14 and OXIII, R 1 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The case was adjourned until 1986. When their evidence was discontinued, the decision of the appellate court and the High Court hearing was upheld, not the basis of the plaintiff's complaint. Went because they had three days to submit the copies and when the evidence relied on the documents, they decided on seven of the plaintiffs as per the requirements of the OI, R 14, CPC. AH should also be listed otherwise they should have produced all documentary evidence at the first hearing of the trial required under OXIII. , R 1, The CPC case of the plaintiffs regarding the changeable entries which they should have received copies of the mutation in question before the date of the hearing and the same should be filed in the court which failed the offer. 1971 about Copyrights continued for about fifteen to fifteen years because the case was filed in 1971 and in 1986 it was decided that the civil court had the discretion to allow the plaintiff more time, but since the High Court on remand It was directed to decide the case at a specific time; it should not be assumed that the court used its discretion in any arbitrary or serious way in closing the plaintiff's evidence, no petition was sought for a public witness. There was no case of interference with the order of the High Court. Was done pakistani advocates Bolan lawyer