Find a Lawyer

MESSRS MARKETING SERVICES INC., THROUGH PRESIDENT versus MESSRS JULLUNDUR PVT. LTD. KARACHI

O XI, R 1 Object and XI, R 1, CPC Investigators intended to respond to it by the defendant's testimony and to use the exception documents as evidence so that the value indicated. If lost, did not pass the cross-examination examination of the Chief Justice in the examination, the scope plaintiff company moved the application for the appointment of a commission to record evidence about the questioning of his witnesses abroad, In this connection a list of questions to be answered by the defendant's witness was included with the request. Such responses should be sought as evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant objected to the approval of the application on the basis that the plaintiff had the option of filing proceedings in Pakistan or abroad and that he had made the decision in Pakistan. I chose to file a lawsuit, therefore, the plaintiff's testimony had to appear before the court to include evidence based on the fact that the plaintiff's answers to his own questions were based on the plaintiff's evidence in this case. To be treated as such, which means that the defendant's witness, after answering his own proposed questions, was able to respond to the plaintiff. The answers to the questions suggested were not to be treated because the evidence for the answers to the questions suggested by the plaintiff seemed largely absurd and alien. Procedure for Evidence The purpose of such inquiry provisions may never be as set forth in Order XI, provided that Rule 1 of CPC CPC Rule 1 sets out to inspect the opposing party. So that they can respond immigration advocates contact from Mansehra lawyer