Section 24A, O, V, R20 & O IX, Rr 3, 4 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Articles 164 and 181 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application moved in the district court on the basis of suit administration, jurisdiction Due to a change in the trial court's dismissal of the trial for illegal prosecution, the trial court's dismissal was dismissed, but it was accepted by the amending court, pending the legality of the trial. The diary showed that the plaintiff was not presented through a judicial motion notice. Minor process The processor server did not disclose the date, time, name and address of the person affected by this type of service. The execution server did not belong to an independent witness while services were impacted by the affix. The defendant was served, but not the plaintiff, there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant or his lawyer was properly served or was refusing to receive a summons. The NS or the court motion notice will be substituted only if all attempts to influence the service in general have been confirmed to be unsuccessful or the parties were deliberately refusing to receive summons. The trial court did not observe the provisions of section 24A (2). ) And the order for the dismissal of the OV, R20, CPC case was unusual, thus it would not run. The ruling was not a legal and factual error. Application dismissed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
