GHULAM RASOOL versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED (ZTBL) THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
Articles 9, 10 and 22 dismiss the application for leave to appear and defense for the recovery of the debt Defendant's son appeared in court on the due date for appearing for leave and the application for defense, but his The presence was not marked and the leave application was dismissed for illegal prosecution and the claim was dismissed by the plaintiff. The defendant's son had the option of verbally presenting the petition and was only requested by the defendant until the defendant's lawyer came and discussed the leave request. The court dismissed the request in a hurry and approved the order; in the circumstances, the matter should have been pending and the leave request for non-prosecution should not be dismissed quickly when the defendant's son was present in court. Yes, the request could be subject to payment. Cost, and no drastic action should have been taken and the order passed by the Banking Court was set aside and the issue of dismissal of leave application for illegal prosecution was also resolved so that the defendant's leave. The application was to be considered pending which will be decided in accordance with the law.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
