O VI, R 17 and O VII, R 2 Sue to recover the amount of the case, the trial court has granted the request for the modification of the case filed by the plaintiff, the defendants have challenged the case. The defendants have been ordered to be arrested in the trial. Was it that the amendment made by the plaintiff was corrupt and that the trial court was trying to delay the trial case? The correct order cannot be returned because no restraining order was approved by the court for modification of the plaintiff. To be made in a malicious order, it was not possible to find a question about the garland, except that there was no other document in the record, which could entertain the question about the mill, giving the applicants the right. That they can apply. In accordance with the law, she has to leave the court to amend her case to introduce the proposed amendment. And did not in any way violate any clause of the law. The request for amendment to the plaintiff was not contemplated nor can it be prosecuted or the cause of this action is part and parcel of the amendment. Would not be the cause of action and prejudice of the defendants on the same material requested by the plaintiff, but it was necessary to effectively and ultimately decide the dispute between the parties. The bar granted permanent authority to grant trial court amendment leave in the initial phase of the proposed amendment. Was there. And the defendants have written a statement in evidence and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
