PROF. (R) DR. MUHAMMAD JAMIL BHUTTA versus ABDULLAH FAROOQ
A. XXXVII, R 3 (2) The plaintiff's legal position in presenting and defending a suit for recovery of money was that he was entitled to an unconditional leave and that the case could be defended and He was granted a conditional leave by trial. Not sustainable under the law, under O XXXVII, R 3 (2), the CPC's discretion was empowered to grant any court leave to defend the matter, unconditionally or on such terms. Provided that in court payment or security trial court, in exercising its discretion, defendant was tagged with leave to present bank security and defend the case, and was declared an illegal plaintiff. Could not be granted when he failed to present the required bank guarantee, the trial court was justified in closing the defendant's right s And the need to \ the right to defend the suit r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
