Find a Lawyer

HABIB BANK LIMITED versus SUHAIL YOUSUF

In section 19 (1) and (7) of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the applicant sought to exclude the property from the schedule of this injunction for a separate execution proceeding to maintain the application of the XXI object. Since the property is owned by him and the defendant has only been approved by the tenant in the property against whom the tenant has already been in possession of the property, through OXI, the financing in the financial institutions (Recovery) Ordinance, 2001 Under, for the purpose of implementing the order, the court was given the power to determine all, in the case of claims from the relevant parties, if the parties When filed, he was not a party to the original proceedings of the case, or because the injunction was obtained by committing misrepresentation and fraud, therefore, it was disingenuous and broad to determine the relevant party's claims. ? In the event of the execution of the decree by the Banking Court, no separate execution request was required, headed by Section 19 (1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001, And the process itself can also be treated as a request for a decree holder to file a separate execution request, which is pending a decision, therefore, if the object request is dealt with in the absence. The case of one of the original parties will also be considered biased because the separate process of execution was pending, therefore, the applicant had all the prior rights and opportunities before the High Court filed the objection in the objection. Refused to approve any order. Application requested Pakistan, top advocate family court from Sohawa District Daska lawyer