Find a Lawyer

WAQAS TRADERS versus M. NAWAZ

Defendants responding to a delay in applying for a petition to appear for section 96 and O XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 5 and Article l59 suit for leave and delay in applying for leave. Was served, though presented before the court, but did not file leave for trial and defense within a fixed time period of ten days, saying that the application was dismissed three months after his employment. The trial was banned and in the trial case, the plaintiff claimed that the written statement filed by him within ten days should appear for leave. And may be construed as an application for the defense of a defense right, subject to the mandatory provisions of Rule 2 & 3 of A. XXXVII, to appear within ten days of the CPC and seek leave to defend the case. It was necessary and in the case to receive such leave charges in advance will be admitted and the plaintiff will be entitled to an injunction, although the written statement was filed by the defendants within ten days, but it was not an OX. XIV III, RR 2 and 3 shall not comply with the requirements of the CPC and shall not be treated as a suit and for leave to defend. I could have, given the trial the trial court had rightly ordered judgment. Appeal for delay in filing leave and priority application for defense claim was not filed top advocate from Haroonabad lawyer