Find a Lawyer

SHAMS-UD-DIN versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

According to the Civil Procedure Code Order XVII and XVII, R3 and Section 96 of the CPC Adjustment Court, the Court of Duty Appellate Tribunal dismisses the case for non-preparation of evidence for speedy disposal of the case for which it Provided two opportunities to the plaintiff. The witnesses were summoned legally but there were some witnesses who did not appear before the court in the postponement date but could not be examined due to the fact that the documents they were to be dismissed. Was not heard. In presenting further evidence to the plaintiff in presenting his testimony, and under OXVII, R 3, CPC, proving that he did not take advantage of the three opportunities given to him to present evidence. The proof of this was stopped by. It is noted, however, that the reluctance to comply with the appellate court's directive to make the decision in the High Court within the stipulated time limit, however, was a part of its duty to do so. According to the law, special instructions should be issued for the disposal of cases by the High Courts as soon as possible in order to decide the cases. The parties were not deprived of their right to a fair hearing. The court should take care that justice was not offered at the altar to settle the cases as soon as possible, the Supreme Court has directed that in the specified time, the direction to settle the case is always in nature. And should be in such a direction. As far as the court will follow in keeping with the interest of justice where the court finds that the law and Ans. female advocates from Lasbela lawyer