MUHAMMAD SALEEM versus MUHAMMAD EHSANUL HAQUE GHAURI
A IX, R 13 and OV, R 20 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164T The trial court decided the recovery and removal case, applying for a separation of the former party decree which the trial court defendants Was rejected. The plaintiff committed fraud and misrepresentation by affecting the summons service in a lesser-known newspaper, which prevented him from knowing the former party decree, which he learned through a court notice. Which issued an order to be attached to the defendants of their property. Thus, the trial court's decision on trial and eligibility revealed that the defendant mentioned the same address in the pending litigation between the parties before the court in another city. He was fully aware of the trial court's order and order against him and he deliberately filed for settlement under Article 160 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where the summons was not properly presented, Put aside the preceding order, the applicant may have learned about the request that the defendants have tried to interrupt the proceedings. Pending for execution Other city defendants could not make misleading statements as false, therefore, the trial could not be conducted in the trial court, which correctly evaluated the material and came to the correct conclusion. , In which case the appeal was dismissed.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
