NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN versus PUNJAB PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
O XVI, Rr 1, 2, O XVIII, R 2 and Section 151 Appointment of a witness (bank employee) to substantiate the report prepared by him, such report was already on record as the respondent's defendant After a petition was made by A to mark its objection to the evidence, the trial court allowed the application on the basis that the plaintiff relied on his report to rely on such report. Attached to the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not come forward in such a case as the certified copy of the list of dependents presented to the superior. The court found such a report to be unrelated to such a suggestion that a perpetual claimant should not be allowed to fill millions in his evidence, mentioning the name of such report in the list of witnesses. Not enough. In order to prevent the jurisdiction of the trial court, such witness may be ordered to be summoned through the court proceedings as he cannot be presented in private and whose statement would certainly be helpful in the trial decision. Therefore, in the spirit of XX, R 1 (2), the judicial judgment was reviewed in its jurisdiction; the CPC-affected verdict did not guarantee any material misconduct and illicit use of the High Court under section 115. , CPC revision request dismissed. Under the circumstances
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
list of supreme court advocates from Gaggo Mandi lawyer
