Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR versus QAMAR DIN

The IX, R 13 and section 115 previous injunctions, keeping the non-production of the processor server replacement service aside, the proof of reasonable service was dismissed by the Principals suit for non-prosecution, and the trial court in the absence of the defendant. After restoring the matter, it was restored. The trial case was issued in favor of the defendant but it had no effect, after which it was published in the newspaper, after the trial court failed to appear in the court. In the execution proceedings, the defendant filed a petition seeking separation of the former party decree, but both the courts refused to reject the decree, but on behalf of the defendant. There was a serious dispute between the parties regarding the suit property raised that it had no effect on the service and the former. This action was in progress. The pre-order and even alternative services could not be of any legal utility as a result of a merger with the Process Serving Agency. The defendant offered a respectable explanation and a sufficient reason that after his recovery. His absence from the case was not intentional or intentional, and the fact that he had no knowledge of this was because there was a serious confrontation between the parties regarding the disputed property, he did not give a reason or feeling. Did not appeal that the defendant deliberately and willfully refrain from any service so that the previous injunction could be obtained. The High Court upheld the plaintiff's lower part of the lower appellate court's case against him by the plaintiff. advocates from Gaggo Mandi lawyer