Find a Lawyer

NAEEM ULLAH KHAN versus ABDUL MUNEEM KARRAK

The Code for Code 151 and 115 of the Code of Conduct, 1908, was dismissed for insecurity in the material fact that the case was adjourned until the first week of November, but instead of the second week of October of the same year. During that time it was decided, therefore, that the lawyer who was out of town could not appear and the applicant could not appear. The accuracy in the above date has been shown by the relevant cause list showing that the request for review was fried, in which the name of the lawyer was regularly posted, which was a proper service lawyer, about which the applicant stated that he was due on the due date. Had moved out of the city. Filed an affidavit to the effect that he had not received any notice of approval of the contents of the application for rehabilitation. In addition to the absence / absence of the party, his lawyer had to be properly and properly established within the parameters prescribed under the law, the revision request was dismissed on 13 10 2000 while the request for reinstatement was made on 2 5 2001. Was filed. 6 months and 20 days which were highly requested and withheld over time No request for condolences was filed by the applicant for any reason for not appearing for the applicant and The lawyer was also not disclosed in the petition. The restoration work was carried out top advocates from Rawala Kot lawyer