SYED AMEER HUSSAIN SHAH versus SYED DILBAR HUSSAIN SHAH
Section 12 (2), O VI, R 4 and O XXIII, R 3 Ex parte decree, to set aside the cases of two competing cases between the parties, to dismiss the applicants' case for litigation. And to issue the former party decree in the respondents. Because the applicant did not appear, the defendant agreed to withdraw his case, but did not, because the applicant did not appear, but did not, the result being that the applicant's case was dismissed for non-prosecution. , While the defendant acquires the former party decree in this case, it can be challenged by the applicant's verdict and the failure to submit a decree under section 12 (2) of the CPC, when proceeding with the suit. If there was fraud committed by either party, nothing on the record to show that the defendant gave Ran had committed a fraud in court. The alleged verbal settlement of the proceedings was affected by the court's limitations. The applicant did not comply with the required requirement of O VI, R 4, CPC, so that the details of the alleged fraud with the dates could be mentioned. The respondents and I, etc., denied the alleged compromise, therefore, the applicant was obliged to seek his remedy by compromising the court under O XXIII, R 3, CPC, and instead of availing appropriate treatment, Could have proved the terms and conditions of the application, on the basis of the same facts and circumstances, even if the alleged reply to the respondents was false, it would not fall under the scope of section 12 (2), CPC. , Because of the respondents only
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
