Sections 39, 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OII, R2 and OVII, R11 la Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Documents, Declarations and Decree Revoking the Disciplinary Court Appeal Claims that the plaintiff's gift process was implemented in the year 1993, and that the plaintiff had two jobs earlier in the same year, but in that case the case was dismissed on that basis. That it was banned by the plaintiff. In the subsequent case, the gift of an affiliate with the same object / purpose as the claim / claim was made by the plaintiff in his first case, a single High Court judge dismissed the subsequent case. O II, R 2, CPC precision object and it was stopped for that purpose. The two suits were identical, ie, for the processing of the three documents, therefore, the alleged infringement or infringement of such understanding is the same and cannot be part of the same claim in relation to the same and the entire claim. Is. Excluded but in the first case, the plaintiff did not mention part of his claim relating to the gift process, while rejecting the claim about the gift process, the claimant filed a claim in connection with the dismissal proceedings. Therefore, the part of the claim that was previously excluded from the trial cannot be made. There has not been a claim for a second lawsuit since the claimant did not claim that at the time of filing his first / preliminary case, he did not know about his alleged right to be part of this claim, so his second / The suit was later found to be right. Order to a High Court Judge
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
