OVI, R17 and O VII, R11 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Articles 42 and 54 of the Trial and Permanent Order Prohibition Amendment were arrested on the basis of the dismissal of the applicant by the defendant bank. And the criminal investigation was over. In favor of the applicant, after which the applicant filed a declaratory claim against the plaintiff's bank, the amount of the alleged embezzlement was deposited with the applicant's relatives in the petitioner's suit. Was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal against him was dismissed by the appellate court in the claim that he was the owner of the money deposited in the respondent bank was the claim of the respondent bank. That the case was not upheld for the declaration because it was not prayed to withhold the money received from the recovery. That is, simply because the relief in question was not prayed for as a result of the recovery, he did not claim the relief claim could be included in the claimant by requesting an amendment at any stage of the proceedings. ? Respondents Bank acknowledged in its written statement that the applicant's legal inheritance was submitted by rejecting the trial court's order. At the stage of the rejection of the ad interim order, the case was illegally remanded to the trial court with the remand that the applicant could apply for further relief to the application for modification of the case. In view of this, it may be available. At the same time, the specific circumstances of the case were reviewed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
