In the OVRR 15 and section 42 of the Special Relief Act (1877), the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff's claim for notice of his right to a permissible allotment of modification of public housing in the case of the 42 The trial court was not presented and the service had an effect on the female members of his family, which was not a viable service. Many notices were issued by the trial court that were returned by the defendant's family. The summons was not received by any of the female members and, due to non-availability of service, the alternatives provided in Order V, Rule 20 of the CPC The record was adopted, which shows that the summons was affixed to the exterior door of the defendant's house and that he was aware of the proceedings, but was present and in action. Failed to participate, so there was nothing illegal in the process
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
