Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT versus FAZAL KHAN

CPC's original Code of Order XLI requests appeals from the original decree, Axl, R27 and Section 100 Additional Evidence Party to present a cell deed when additional evidence was sought to be presented by the defendant. Was stopped, which was in the possession and control of the defendant. Could be presented at the trial stage, and then the defendants did not produce documents during the trial, during the first appeal hearing, and during the second appeal's approval for several years. If he was negligent, no explanation and no reason was offered in the evidence as to why the document in question had not been presented before and why additional evidence was allowed to be presented by additional evidence for the decision in the case. Be given The evidence already on record was sufficient to decide this case and the court did not have to present the evidence in evidence for effective adjudication. Appeal 1 In the documentary question, otherwise, a private document was proved by the evidence. The court did not have to use its discretion in allowing the defendant to present the documents in question; through additional evidence the defendant was not only negligent but he had not disclosed any evidence before. The reason for their failure is to require the defendant to file documents with additional evidence in the second appeal phase. There is no justification to t best advocate from Ugoki lawyer