SH. MUHAMMAD IRFAN versus SITARA COMMISSION SHOP
A. XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 suits for recovery of money, conditional leave to defend this case, non-compliance of the trial court granted leave to defend the case subject to bank guarantee submission, the defendants The bank guarantee on the bail was not submitted that the trial court should have decided the question of maintaining the case along with the application for leave to defend the validity if the defendant failed to present the bank guarantee in terms of the interim order. So that resulted and the defendant's request was rightfully rejected by the trial court's order. Practical; since such an order was neither arbitrary nor against a law which was declared to guarantee interference with the amending jurisdiction of the High Court.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
law firms from Dijkot lawyer
