Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHAR AHMAD versus MALIK ALLAH DIWAYA

A non-solicitation application to defend the suit for recovery was dismissed on the basis of A. XXXVII, Rr 2, 4 and Section 151 Pro Note, after which the CPC sought leave to amend the application. I demanded an amendment. Defending the case but dismissing it as well. The latter request did not provide any justification as to why the grounds were not included in the original application or the reasons for not filing the application within the 10 day period set by O. XXXVII. The petition, under section 151, was held under consideration, and was properly dismissed by the Additional District Judge of the case, indicating that the defendant's counsel or So order XXXVII does not care to check the provisions of CPC. Seeking leave for defense or failing to notify defendant of law enforcement when defendant's lawyer was in question Aid through the court stated that he acted negligently in which he admitted his error. Therefore, there was severe prejudice against the defendant in violation of professional duty which was sent to the Punjab Bar Council for proper action. \ R \ n \ r \ n property advocate from Topi lawyer