Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ BUTT versus METROPOLITAN CORPORATION LIMITED

The Civil Procedure Code CPC VIII and O VIII of the CPC Written Statement, RR 1 & 10 [as amended by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act (XIV of 1994]] = = to be postponed. Non-filing of a written statement, however, can only be invaded by the defendant's defense only if the court is required to exclude the written statement by the due date where the defendant is required to file a written statement despite the anticipated delay in receiving the purpose. Didn't care, after more than 30 days the defense will be attacked. Was in accordance with the law. The first appellate court erroneously held that because of the amendment to the Oent item, the 90-day time limit was the outer limit, the outer limit was 30 days, the trial court repeatedly required a response by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act 1994. Filing a written statement, his discharge within the stipulated time was deadly and the trial court rightly struck defendant's defense because of his unlawful conduct. It is strongly believed that the written statement had to be filed within 90 days. Through the trial, the trial court correctly requested that the first appellate court search was set aside and restored by the trial court. Defendant's defense was withheld. Pakistan, top advocate family court from Chawinda lawyer