Find a Lawyer

UMER HAYAT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. THROUGH MANAGER

Testimony of Sections 9 and 12 of the Law (10 of 1984), Article 129 (e) of the previous Decree, remanded case aside, the concept of postal recovery, both before failing to comply with the order passed by the High Court case. In the presence of the High Court, the remand was received by the parties and it was directed that the case should be decided within two months. In the post-remand proceedings, the defendants did not appear in court and forwarded them to the previous hearing. Was filed and the defendants were issued a notice that they were not served according to the law. Defendant's defendants, pursuant to the direction of the High Court, did not make any inquiry from the Banking Court which was remanded within two months with the direction to decide it, along with the Defendants. Notices were also issued to the solicitor, / upon acceptance, as a courier service and through the process server, certified copies of the invoices were available on the record, indicating that the defendant's lawyer had been received by the courier service. The legal requirement was sent to the postal receipt that a notice under the registered cover had reached its destination in the process. The head server reported that the defendant's home was locked and a notice was pasted on the outside door of the house. As regards the right to approve the previous order, the village limber found out about the fact that the lumber holder knew about the order, not the defendant, the High Court refused to interfere with the decision. And the appeal of the banking court order was dismissed famous lower court advocate from Kharian lawyer