A. XXXVII, RR 1 and 2 proceedings under OXVIVI, the CPC Nature Suit for Recovery of Money was dismissed for leave to defend the defendant, and the order of the case was issued that O. XXXVII, In the case filed under R 2, leave shall be granted for defense. The CPC did not have the right to be awarded to a plaintiff in a mechanical manner and in order to entitle itself to such a right, the defendant had to disclose a defensible defense that resulted in understandable matters. Can be given, in which, in the present case, the defendant did not deny the petition for leave for defense and the pro note was promptly and legally sealed and observed. It was held that the nature of the proceedings under A. XXXVII R 2 was CPC summary in nature, if one was plaintiff. Obligated to present a suitable instrument in court, the same responsibility was imposed on the defendant simultaneously with the help of documentary evidence and with the help of the defense to defend the case, an appropriate vacation leave application was made. Can be done. e To grant leave for defense and not merely to raise immoral objections in connection with the case of the plaintiff if no defensive value of the name was tolerated and from the facts laid down in the application for leave for defense, such application Should be denied appeal \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
