Find a Lawyer

GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. THROUGH SECRETARY C&W versus REHMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O IX, R 13 Suite de Acceleration Ex parte decree, which separates the respondents absent, pleads with the defendant approximately five months after the request for separation of the former parties' decree. Submitted by. No evidence is in the record to prove that an inspector was regularly served with the defendant from the hearing of the previous injunction and the hearing of the respondent's request for delay on record. The entire process of serving the summons on the defendant was terminated. The Malahide defendants were entitled to present evidence that they were not summoned according to the law, but there was no evidence to show that they had full knowledge of the case, deliberately. Another Provo from IX did not appear in court to contest the case. R 13, CPC has demanded in court that if the applicant has knowledge of the preliminary information in an application, the application for dismissal of the previous party decree should be dismissed despite any irregularities in the service. ? The submission of the defendant that since the matter involves a government interest, the defendant should be considered. Presenting the defendant (government department) cannot be considered because the scale of justice should have equal weight among citizens. And to be good on the basis of the affected verdict, it was justified to refuse to reject the previous party decree, especially in an Islamic state such as the civilian or civilian state and the courts of Pakistan as below. Section 115, CPC famous high court advocate from Kotla lawyer