SAEED-UR-REHAJMAN versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN MAIN BRANCH GILGIT THROUGH MANAGER
The suit was unconditionally authorized to recover the money on the basis of the promise named A. XXXVII, Rr 1 & 2 and section 115, and the defendant was required to submit a written statement. Was postponed by the Reader of Court. Judge engaged in other matters On this date the fixed defendant applied for a postponement which was denied The trial court refused to allow the defendant to file a leave petition to defend the case. Was made and the plaintiff's claim was remanded to review the matter for retention of the Chief Court once the trial was held. The defendant was allowed to defend and was also given time to file a written statement so he could not return the leave order without the request of the parties or any notice from the affected party. The material was not approved and the previous hearing was not reversed so the Chief Court had jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC and is subject to review
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
jobs for fresh advocates from Tall lawyer
