Find a Lawyer

BRITISH HIGH COMMISION DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, RAMNA, 5 P.O. BOX 1122, ISLAMABAD versus SAJJAD ANWAR

Section 86 A&O VIII, R II Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act (IX of 1972), Section 4 and Schedule 1, Article 31 State Immunization Ordinance (VII 1981), Section 6 (1) and diplomatic missions to meet 17 losses The employee's written response to the lawsuit against the recovery of the case was not a voluntary action in the proceedings. The plaintiff was an employee of the British High Commissioner who, before filing a written response under the OII RII CPC, dismissed the application mission illegally. Had filed a lawsuit against the dismissal. The trial court's written response directive was also filed, the mission raised the request for diplomatic immunity in the application along with OVII, RII C, PC as well as the trial court's request for a written statement on the accuracy of the mission. Excludes the initial statement. The objection to the retention of this case was not interfered with under the provisions of the State Immunity Ordinance 1981, and the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act 1972, and it cannot be assumed that it was to appear before the courts in Pakistan. The submission of a written statement after filing an application under OVII, R II under the direction of the trial, will not be considered by the CPC. The voluntary action step was not covered under the provisions of s4 (3) (A0 and (B) of the State Immediate Ordinance 1981 which is read with section (4) of the section OVII, R II, CP) Defendant's request under C) was granted and in the circumstances the case was dismissed famous high court advocate from Nilam lawyer