Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

O VII, R 11, O XXXIX, Rr 1, 2; A XVII, R 3 & O VI, R 17 In rejecting the plaintiff, O XXXXX, Rr 1 & 2, deciding the application under CPC trial court , The order was passed when the plaintiff could not produce its title document, the appellate court upheld such order. Was it improper to approve an inappropriate order based on the object raised in the written statement only, and there was no justifiable tendency to reject the plaint by passing the formal order on request under OLXX, RR1 and 2? , The CPC plaintiff was not verified, after filing the plaintiff, should have stated in clear words that his case would be dismissed if he was to be sent to the court on a trial for his title. If he fails to agree, he can immediately resort to O. XVII, R 3, instead of dismissing the case, the CPC resigning to the plaintiff. The trial court was required to read O VI, R 17 & O VII, R 11, CPC simultaneously to remove the required cure or defect, but the trial court followed the reversal course after which the High Court. Sent to trial court to resume trial ne After listening to the parties, even if conditions were denied and no title work was involved, the law was not required immigration advocate from Karore Lalisan lawyer