Find a Lawyer

SABAZ ALI KHAN versus ABDUL KHALIQ

Due to the postponement of the Civil Procedure Code Order XVII (V of 1908) of CPC Adjustments Sections 17 and 24, OXVII, RR 4 and 5, the pre-emption order excluding tenants' remission Dragged on for years. Unless it was decided by the tenant in the previous part of 1997, it shows that the tenant never intended to produce evidence, but without paying any rent to the landlord, The shop in question was enjoying possession, so was extending the withdrawal request. The rent in court or with the former owner from whom the landlord purchased the same hangings for the title of the landlord will not provide any protection to the tenant; he must pay the rent to the claimant, who established the first owner's property. And had taken notice before. About the change of ownership on it, and the landlord becoming a landlord before the rent was settled, the CPC was re-placed in the tenant after seeking a delay for as many years as possible, finally controlling the rent. It was stated before the holder that he would present his evidence on 16 2 1997, however, in history, the Presiding Officer was on leave parties in terms of O. XVII, R 5, CPC to present the witnesses' attendance and attendance. Was required to appear in court on this date and the case was adjourned due to the absence of the Presiding Officer to obtain the next date. Was sung, the date of which was declared a closed holiday (Sunday) instead of Friday. So, once again the next day, under the O XVII, R 4, CPC, the next day on the next day of vacation, appear before the rent controller and get the date. famous supreme court advocate from Umer Kot lawyer