A. IX, R 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 Defending the Ex parte Order on 8-8 2008 Approving the Ex parte Proceedings Order and Responding to the Execution of the Ex parte Decree on 2 3 2009 The plaintiff's request for filing such an application on Ali's petition 30 10 2009 and 23 11 2009 was that she first learned of the decree on 30 2009 10 2009. And that he was not presented with summons in the trial court's claim of excluding such application for the purpose of defaulting and not explaining the delay. After issuing and holding the bar notices, the trial court proceeded against the defendants. They were served, but did not affect alternative services. The trial court was required to issue alternative services to provide justice against the defendant; the trial court dismissed the plea without giving the defendant an opportunity to present evidence in support of his plea. Without discussing the evidence on the record on the previous order and seeing whether the government is obliged to keep the case without enforcing it as a party, or in the defendants' negligence in filing such an application A valid decree could be granted on the basis of outgoing claims, it was a valuable right. The defendants were involved in the case and in the course of justice on the merit, the purpose of the courts would be to give the parties proper and concrete justice after allowing the appropriate opportunity of hearing, but the matter should be decided on the merit and the technical failure. If the recourse is taken, the High Court has disposed of the unlawful RR
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
