MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED
Sections 10, 9 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O'Lean, RR 12 and 14, the procedure for a bankruptcy court suit for a defense for leave was dismissed and the plaintiff's bank filed a lawsuit in favor of The verdict was pronounced, moreover, that the plaintiff's bank had received excessive markup and had tampered with the records and documents, there was no power in the presence of the defendant's confession that the defendant had The loan facility was obtained after the necessary documentation was implemented by the source. Accuracy was associated with the same cannot identify any fraud or tampering because by it he was not sufficient to accuse me of fraud or tampering simply because the defendant was obliged to state the details and contents of the alleged fraud. Under Oliver's application, CPR RR 12 and 14 should have been approved by the banking court for seeking documents. It had no power that any such application could not be entertained or decided by the banking court, without applying for leave to apply for defense or, therefore, for no reason, the bankruptcy court's impugned order In the presence of interference with, the appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
