Section 12 (2), A XXXVII, RR 2 and 3 for the recovery of the document based on the suit which contains the title of the promissory note but also the contract of the word which the defendant has Defendant claims will be allowed to file the document was not an exchangeable device, therefore, based on O XXXVII, R 2, the CPC was not applicable subject to the defendant's failure to court after approval of the leave The result of the hearing was a decree passed by the trial court on 31-8 2006. Application under section 12 (2), CPC filed on 12 August 2012 (12), application under section 12 (2) on the request of the claimant banning the rejection of the application under section 12 (2). Filed December 20, 2012, alleging being without authority. The trial court's validity by the CPC was initially disputed by the trial court's jurisdiction, and after the filing of the unclean decree by application under section 12 (2), regarding the documents which were pending with the CPC, Which was claimed by the claimant. If there is to be a means of communication, the trial court did not make any specific finding while assuming jurisdiction under the summary chapter, and in rejecting the application under section 12 (2), the CPC question is whether Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to pass an invalid order, if that were true, it would mean that the entire building built on such delinquent proceedings was bound to collapse, not against the invalid order. It can be ignored and it cannot be allowed to stand there because the High Court has reopened the trial.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
