MESSRS ALLIED GROUP VENTURESLIMITED versus QUALITY VISION (PVT.) LIMITED
O VIII, R 1 [As Reporting Entry 2 10 2001], O IX, R 3 & OX, R 6 Written Statement, Defendant That Was Not Determined For Trial Hearing Written statement filed after two dates was a matter of hearing and was against the provisions of oh VIII, R1 [as filed by notification 210 of 2001] when justification was not set for trial So, it can neither be dismissed nor any previous injunction can be granted against the defendant because a trial was required for the hearing in both OX, R 3 & OX, R 6, CPC. In history The prayer for the prayer was filed by the Advocate and the Power of Attorney was filed on the second date, the two dates cannot be considered pending on the basis of the requirements of the 8th, R1, CPC and hence From, OV VIII, R 12, CPC was not attracted by the provisions of Proviso (2). The High Court refused to interfere with the order. Under the circumstances, the trial court granted
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
best advocate from Jatoi lawyer
