Find a Lawyer

AQEEL AHMED versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM

The trial court set aside the decree on 8-8 2004, pursuant to AIX, R 13 and O XXXVII, RR 2, 3 and 4 Litigation Act (IX of 1908), Article 156 Pro Note. And the original file of the case was processed on 10 June 2004. The defendant applied for leave to appear for leave and for defense claim, the trial court dismissed the leave request because the defendant had not filed the same within ten days of acquiring knowledge. In filing an application for setting aside the preceding order 3 7 2004, and on the basis of the evidence already entered, this order, which already exists, did not issue a summons to the defendant for legal proceedings in this trial. Was or was not required to be submitted a copy of the claimant's supply by O XXXVII. , RR 2 (3) and 3, the CPC trial court, expressing dissatisfaction with the action server's report, proceeded to seek defendant's service with reference to the newspaper, which was an alternative service and not a suitable service. O XXXVII, R 2 (2) or OV, R 20 (1), CPC's original file was not before the trial court until 10, 2004, in the absence of any further evidence, the defendant was presented for the first time in the case. Will be considered as done. On June 10, 2004, with the application for such leave, the High Court accepted the appeal, keeping the decision / order aside, seeking remand for the trial court to obtain a written statement. And make the same decision after recording the evidence in accordance with the law. famous lower court advocate from Phagwar lawyer