 |
| Written Reply to Application for Adjournment |
In the name of ALLAH, the most beneficent, the most
merciful
IN THE COURT OF MISS
SANA AFZAL, LEARNED FAMILY JUDGE RAWALPINDI
Rabia
Batool Begum Versus Ahmed Naeem Butt
APPLICATION
FOR ADJOURNMENT
WRITTEN REPLY ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That
the instant application has been filed to prolong the litigation as on the last
date of hearing i.e
2. That
the stated person Aamir Shah is not
witness in the case therefore on assertion of his absence is not a ground for
adjournment wherein the court has already provided number of opportunism to
applicant therefore the application demands its dismissal.
ON MERIT:-
1. Para
No.1 is correct and admitted.
2. Para
No. 2 is correct.
3. Para
No.3 is incorrect as stated hence denied. It is reiterated that the said Aamir
Shah is not a witness of the case as he
was never nominated/ mentioned in the list of witnesses produced by the
applicant/ plaintiff and at this stage, without including the said person, he
cannot be appear as witness without permission of this Honourable Court. The insertion of witnesses in the list is
mandatory provision which debars
litigants to produce any other witnesses not included in the same. It is
also pertinent to mention here that on the last date of hearing, this
Honourable Court categorically directed to produce plaintiff herself in person
and today she is against not present in the court.
PRAYER:
In
view of above, it is respectfully prayed that the application under reply may
kindly be dismissed and the provision of order 17 rule 3 of CPC may kindly be invoked
and the suit of applicant/ plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.
Respondent/Defendant
Through
Advocate High Court
 |
| Download Written Reply to Application for Adjournment |