Find a Lawyer

ZULFIQAR versus MUHAMMAD JAN

CPC appearance and non-submission of Civil Procedure Code Order IX results in OI, R 13, Sections 12 (2), 115 and OV, 16, 18, 19 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Section 4 and Article 181 Ex parte limitation, order was issued keeping respondent's case Ex parcis application was filed on 12 7 2000 and on knowing of the ex parte decree during the execution proceedings 31 72,000 was set for the applicant to be heard, 1 for his application to be set aside. 92000 Trial Court denied that the petition and the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Verification of accuracy on the back of the summons does not indicate that the service of the summons has been effective in accordance with the provisions of OV, R 16, 18 and 19, the CPC processor server did not mention it in the previous section. Why the applicant cannot be served at the home address given in the plaintiff. What were the circumstances that led him to seek the applicant in a particular office? Who had identified the applicant in this office and in whose presence the trial court could not inspect the server for final proceedings before the appellate court had also made up its mind on the essential terms of the law? The appeal was taken up without issue. For this, the appellate court was so negligent that it had not even reviewed the provision of the law under which the applicant had applied for ex parte decree, the appellate court granted the petition under CPC. Was declared under section 12 (2) and dismissed the appeal. , They may not agree with the law on this subject lawer from fb area from Jhatta Bhutta lawyer