KHURSHID AND OTHERS versus UMAR BAKHSH THROUGH L.RS.
Article 21 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), VI VI, R 4 The principle of the right to self-determination is not mentioned in the applicants in which the High Court dismissed the case in favor of the pre-emperor in exercise of the amended jurisdiction. done. This waiver rule was not drawn to the facts of the case, and the sinking principle proved that Wendy's failed to defend that the disputed transaction was divisive. The dispute with the vendors was that Cinque's request was not mentioned to the plaintiff, therefore, they could not be. Such a point was knocked to the point whose principle was already questioned before the Supreme Court and could not be entertained, on the basis of which it cannot be estimated Shopkeepers paid for a separate vendor. In this regard, the written statement was also silent and it was never mentioned that the fact that the shopkeepers paid separately should include the basic fact that the written statement was irrelevant but no such request was taken, Therefore, under such evidence, the merits of this matter will not be affected by the provisions of OVI, R4 CPC, no illegal or irregularity was committed by the High Court Warranty. Was. Interference in judgment for which reason the appeal was dismissed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
