O. IX, R 13 (1) Second Proviso Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Articles 12, 42 and 54 for specific performance, declaration and injunction for the pre-emptive injunction, issuing summons, not issuing the defendant But an attempt was made to keep the former party separate based on the order that their summons was not properly complied with. The defendants were presented on the summons in the main case, but were later served on the notice issued in connection with the petition filed and a lawyer justified the delivery of the Occultancy RO. 13 (1), the CPC was concerned not only with the knowledge of this suit but also in the knowledge acquired in a particular and specific manner, namely, the service of properly presented summons, which was necessary and It was also important that the summons be issued if it provided for other provisions. IX, R 13 (1) CPC can remove any irregularities in the service of summons provided the court is satisfied that the defendant actually knew the relevant hearing date at the appropriate time but could not withhold this time. ? On the issue of non-issuance of e-summons, the provision of other provisions to the OIX, R13 (1), the CPC was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and did not provide any proper service to any of the defendants. Under which the former party was separated. The order and the case restored to its former position, the High Court directed the defendants to file their written statements within four weeks.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
