AFZAL HUSSAIN versus MESSRS HABIB BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER
Section 9 (4) Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O IX, R 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908) Article 164 Petition to keep the ex parte decree, service of summons, filed by the bank against the summons The appellant had filed a petition for the separation of the previous party order, but was dismissed by the trial court through an impugned order; the appellant's sentence was that the person should be informed about this date. I had no personal services to tell. A previous verdict was heard against him, and being an illiterate man, he could not read the advertisement published in the newspaper. The servant cannot be considered lawful services to his servant and as soon as he was told about the order he filed the petition that the applicant's request was banned, and no one was there to humiliate him. No request. Delay was filed The process for appellant's service was issued in different ways at the same time Appellant was unable to prove that he was illiterate or he was living with family members who did not read. Or he could not read the newspaper, the appellant refused. That it was not notified by the servant who received the notice through the processor server, that the notice issued by someone under the postal cover was received at the applicant's residence, at the request of the applicants. Time was stopped because it failed to explain the delay caused. The same file was made, with no application for condolences from the date of its knowledge and then delayed, surprisingly, the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
