Find a Lawyer

WALI MUHAMMAD versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD

In the Civil Procedure Code Order XVIIA XVII, R 3 and Section 115 of the CPC Habits, after the conclusion of the evidence, their defendants were asked to direct their evidence, but this Yet they could not produce any evidence in the larger histories. Defendants / applicants were once more burdened with expenditures, more than once it was stated that the next opportunity would be the last opportunity, but they continued the postponement and practiced such practice for almost two years. Continuing, the defendants were given the last opportunity to make their statement, but no one appeared in the court within the stipulated date and the court waited for the defendants and their lawyer to arrive at work hours, but no one appeared in the court. Did not appear, the court finally applied the amendment provisions of O. XVII, R 3. LA stopped. Keep their own statements as witnesses, and finally their evidence ill for the defendants / applicants to examine witnesses who were closed during the proceedings for almost two years, their evidence was properly sealed. There was no material irregularity committed by the court in closing the evidence of the defendants and there was no misconduct of justice by the order of the court, in such order the High Court Cannot interrupt source. review law firms from Rajana lawyer