BASHIR AHMED versus SKYLINE LAHORE (PVT.) COMPANY THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
A. XXXVII, 1 and 2 suits for recovering the money, leave to defend the case, the defense defense jurisdictional trial court granted conditional leave to defend the defendant subject to the submission of bail bond. The trial hearing was dismissed because the defendant had to extend the time for the same plea that because he had taken up a defensible defense, therefore, an unconditional leave should have been obtained, the plaintiff's name of the defendant being his Written in hand, kept his signature, but in words and figures, the plaintiff's defense was offered by a colleague before the hearing. Yah was presented during the hearing and ask for leave to defend, while others complain of institutional and private suite dates appear, it can not be blamed for the suspect to drop off unconditionally. Defendant's brother raised important questions regarding the law and facts, and made him entitled to leave on the occasion Traditionally, the trial court noted the facts but did not consider this aspect. What happened and as the trial court suffered a judicial error while granting a conditional leave, therefore, refusing to extend the time to submit the surety was not practically a sustainable High Court. In the jurisdiction of the amendment, the order passed by the trial court rejected the order and the application for leave to appear and defend the case was unconditionally valid.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
