Find a Lawyer

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

A. XXXVII, suit for recovery of money and suit for defense claim, in the present case, was filed on the basis of checks, proceedings / executions which were neither heard before the trial court nor Neither was the hearing denied to the plaintiff in the High Court, who presented the check to the Draw Bank, whose payment was refused, transferred his land in favor of the defendant by mutation. After that it was not related to any agreement between the defendant and the two. The other party to bring the investment for the party to which they were not a party and to execute / execute such agreement in an instrument under O XXXVII, RR 1 & 2, CPC, O XXXVII, RR 1 & 2 was not enough to allow leave to defend this case. It is acknowledged that the defendant did not in fact request any dispute touching the plaintiff's case, which requires the decision / trial by recording of the evidence. The trial court allowed payment of a check issued in 1996, in which advertising lost its purchase price due to inflation, while plaintiffs' land, which was transferred in favor of the defendants, was sold at market prices. The price has gone up several times due to the increase. Such situation shows that no injustice was encountered. When the defendants themselves slept about their rights after the notice served by the trial court and did not apply for leave to appear and defend the case, despite being represented by their representative, And from time to time by the trial court best advocate from Garh More lawyer