Find a Lawyer

DR. IFTIKHAR AHMED versus DR. SHAIKH SHAHZADA KABIR AFTAB

A. XXXVII, Rr 2, 3, Sections 20 (c), 96 and OV, RR 10, 10A, 11, 20 The plaintiff for reclaiming the territorial jurisdiction from the management of the court, who was based in Karachi in Samanabad and Was the distributor of goods. The defendants, who were based in Peshawar, were provided with the goods on request; AFXX, after giving notice to the defendant, the defendant, of three post-dated checks issued by the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff. The case established under VII, the CPC opposed the suit against the suit on two grounds, the first being that the Karachi court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter. Legal support was not sought with the defendant for the delivery of goods between the parties, where the goods in question were available. ? The fact that the defendant was indefinitely supplied and part of the cause of action for the defendant, in the circumstances, was collected on the Karachi checks, which were later disgraced, produced by the defense. It was also pointed out that the trial proceedings are part of the proceedings of the claimant under the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction in Karachi and the claim was officially filed by the claimant in Karachi. In the case that was filed in the court, the suit enjoyed full authority to entertain and decide the cases in the trial court, entertaining the defendant's objection to the territorial jurisdiction in the court. Had the power to decide. Pappa, in the situation, was ordered to furnish bail on the defendants through the bailiff. registration advocate from Kamber Ali Khan lawyer