Section 2 (c), 7 and 15 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 12 (2) and suit for OI, R3 rehabilitation ordered effect suit for recovery of mortgage owner negligence And during the execution proceedings, the applicant moved the application under Section 12 (2), CPC, to decide that he was the owner of the mortgage and was never enforced in this case. Nor did the mortgage of the said property nor the request for any financial assistance be dismissed by the trial court, Validati Bank, at the time of filing the case, was aware that the petition The mortgagee is the legitimate owner of the mortgaged property and the mortgage was executed in favor of the bank by his alleged lawyer. (Her husband) In terms of customer appreciation in Section 2 (c) of the Ordinance, the applicant was a mortgage of security and, therefore, he came to the customer's appreciation and was a goodbye to his party in the trial. And his dissatisfaction with his position as a plaintiff was a serious mistake. The effect of such an act was that there was no injunction against the applicant nor his personal property sold in compliance with such decree. In which they were not. Nothing on the record party showed that it could be inferred that the agent (the applicant) had told the principal (applicant) about his property and financing mortgage, only the High Court had observed. That the plaintiff should have been more cautious before the fact that the bank provided the finance and at least the applicant should have filed a case as a party to the case
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
