MANGORA TEXTILES INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
Sections 9, 15 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 47, AXXIII, R3 Law in Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 103 sued by the Banking Court / Trial Court for recovery of suit ? As a result of the agreement, the bank was obliged to release the property and release the machinery and stock after the plaintiff paid the money, under which the parties agreed to withdraw their cases filed against each other. The contract was to be enforced by the court, so, under section 47, the case was not upheld; the CPC was without any power, as no decision was returned because of compromise. Or the content of the plaintiff's material had to be determined to determine the plaintiff's locus standi. The land would be considered immovable property but nothing was available to prove that the stock, etc., were not part of the immovable property under the covenant, which was in the possession of the defendants at the time of the said stock agreement / contract. Do not mention any such stock Oral evidence relating to the contents of the Iqama documents will be excluded under Article 103 of the Convention of Martyrdom, 1984 The machinery and mills were not mortgaged with possession. The plaintiff stated that the machinery and The mills have not been in possession since the aforesaid machinery or by the defendants withdrew the final case. Sue was nothing exclusive presence has been clearly defined by the agreement / contract for the claimant to file the defendants, the plaintiff would have to be accused of illegal possession or use. The stock was unconditionally withdrawn by the defendant
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
