Find a Lawyer

AHMAD HASSAN SHAH versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN

CPC Procedure Code Order XVII of CPC Adjustments OXVII, R 2 Failure to re-present evidence on the plaintiff's adjournment date which was the last opportunity for this purpose, the trial court amended the defendant's closing evidence as The plaintiff's order was upheld. Defendant's request was not supported by the required documentary evidence, claiming by the plaintiff that such evidence was presented to the amending court despite the fact that in the documentary question, support for the petition for adjournment I was attached to the revision memorandum, nor was any argument resolved on the basis of such a document, nor did the plaintiff's lawyer file an affidavit stating that he had Argued on the matter but the reviewing court failed to consider and dispose of such objection in its designated order. To seek to justify such illegal orders. Evidence has not been shown to rule out the rejection orders of the courts. divorce advocates from Taunsa sharif lawyer