Find a Lawyer

MST. SHAMIM TAHIRA versus ZARAI TARAQIYATI BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH MANAGER

Sections 9 and 10 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R 11 Defendant's refusal to disclose any reason The court's authority to dismiss the plaintiff in his own contract sued the bank That they had not received any loan. The specific account was discharged for defense proceedings in the case, which shows that the plaintiff has received Rs 1,30,000 from the bank as the specific account number was served under the Banking Court The plaintiff did not show any reason for the action. The plaintiffs confessed to avail loan of up to Rs 1,30,000 against the same loan account that the bank had not filed any application under O VII, R 11, CPC has no power Because nowhere in the provisions of the order has it been ruled that the defendant has been declared compulsory. Apply for dismissal of the plaintiff and the court, before which the suit was pending, was itself empowered to dismiss the plaintiff in Order VII, R 11 CPC, which clarified the matter. As it turns out, in some cases it could be dismissed, rather it was the court's duty to examine the matter to determine whether the looting of the litter should be rejected or the order of the banking court under which the case was settled. Rejected after being granted leave to defend, he did not demand interference with the circumstances. law firms from Sakrand lawyer