Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE versus ZAHIDA BEGUM

CPC Adjustment Section 17 Civil Procedure Code Order XVII Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), 0 XVII; Had followed Was present on the due date but the tenant did not appear nor bring proof on that day; the tenant's request to postpone the case by the tenant was rejected and the next day the landlord appeared. But was unable to appear that day, the tenant controller closed the evidence on the tenant because there was no other evidence and the tenant was ordered to evacuate, after the order was announced, the rent Dar's lawyer appeared and requested that the tenant's statement be recorded, but the rent controller refused to do so. It turned out that after the order was announced, the function had become opioid, so he could not reopen the case order, could not be considered a judicial order to attract the delivery of fines. The Sine Court had to keep in mind whether the petition was adjourned by a party or the court adjourned the hearing of the case; the date of the hearing was not fixed at the request of the tenant but the court He should not have closed evidence while deferring the case himself. The pending tenant order, the withdrawal was terminated because the court order was not appropriate, and after providing the parties with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, the case was remanded for re-adjudication. criminal advocate from Manoabad lawyer