Find a Lawyer

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN versus SAIF NADEEM ELECTRO LIMITED

Sections 9 and 10 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXIII, Rr 1 (3) and Second Suit for Recovery of Debt Amount Apply for leave to defend defendants' request after withdrawing the first case. That the second case was buried by O. XXIII, RI (3), CPC, in view of the exclusion of the earlier trial on the same subject matter between the parties, which was raised by the bank in lieu of a settlement. In view of the withdrawal, the bank never applied for a withdrawal. Such an order was approved on request for a decree under OXXIII, R 3, CPC, but in this case the matter was not attracted to another jurisdiction, the petition filed by the bank for such amendment. The dismissal order and the restoration of the case were dismissed as inadmissible, and the second case was enforceable, which led to the defendant's request for a fresh motion for a fresh cause for settlement violation. Was. The bank ever applied for the unconditional return of the earlier case; after recording the facts of the settlement, the court dismissed the case, instead of proceeding to the trial, without any request / prayer / request from the bank. Dismissed the claim, such an order did not terminate the settlement decision under A. XXIII, R 3, CPC, nor declared it as an unconditional withdrawal order under sub-rifle (1). Can neither be interpreted nor banned by sub-rule (), and thus the order was to dismiss the matter as understood by the parties. Bank account in response to the request for maintenance famous high court advocate from Rajana lawyer