OI, R 9, O VII, R 11, O XXIII, R 1 (3) and Section 11 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 suit for declaration of unlawful or misdemeanor prosecution The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the trial court's hearing was illegal / because of the plaintiff's claim that the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim instead of dismissing the defendant. The first case was withdrawn, the second case was not stable. Delivering the law and delivering the wrong result on Order XXIII, R1 (3), the CPC banned the fresh case, but the burden of proof was on the defendants that the case was banned because they Had raised an objection under O XXIII, R 1. 3), CPC Order I, R 9, CPC specifically provided that no case should be dismissed for wrong jinder or non-participation of the parties, but OI, R 10 (2) Under the CPC, the court was empowered to strike or add to it. At any stage of the PPP the parties listed below wrongly stated that this case was not maintainable because the parties did not join the court, under the provisions of OVII, R1 (i), CPC As stated in Order VII, this assessment had to be relied upon by the plaintiff, 11 CPC, claiming the court rejected the plaintiff, which had been insufficiently sealed and where the plaintiff was appointed by the court. At the time the required stamp paper had failed to be filed, the trial court did not allow the plaintiff the appropriate time to file the required court fee, but based on his assumptions. That is
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
