Find a Lawyer

BILQUIS FATIMA versus NASIM AHSAN

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 9 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XVI, R 3 Suit for possession under section 9, Special Relief Act, 1877 Trial Court accused of evading evidence and prosecuting. On the same day after the plaintiff's evidence was filed towards the closure of the defendant, the plaintiff was a distant relative of the deceased owner while the defendant was his wife and children. And that should not have been a litigation decision. After refusing to provide the opportunity for cross-examination of the defendants and vessels, on a technical basis, the defendants' justification for the reason assigned by the trial court to exclude the petition filed by the defendants in their reopening case. Could not present. 20 8 1989, when the defendants closed their case and on the next date of hearing they filed their court proceedings, a petition for the registration of power and reopening of their direction was filed on 9 sel 10 1989 which Should not be dismissed because the background of the matter was timely banned, especially when the defendant was the widow and mother of the young children and the heirs of the late owner. After his death, no decree was passed which specifically prevented the defendants from scrutinizing the plaintiffs, but a special order was passed with their evidence closed. The trial court should have shown flexibility in allowing the trial court to examine the plaintiffs and to guide the court's orders as well. Super immigration advocates email from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer