A. XXXVII, Rr 2, 4 and O IX, R 13 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 181 Recovery suit application dismissed by defendant's request for leave to defend for illegal proceedings and defendant against it The request to reject the previous order declaring the plaintiff was also rejected. The Waldetti plaintiff also said that the defendant had purchased the TV set and issued a check in his favor which led to the FIR's registration against the plaintiff's defendant and the FIR. Were. Both of the others said that the documents were available on the court file and the court was also obliged to consider them, while the former party's decree specifically referred to the money lending business as unlicensed by the plaintiff. Had objected to giving. Anyone other than financial institutions or companies can do lending business through State Bank of Pakistan. The court was bound to ascertain whether the court could recover illegal loans through both the courts. As a defender of the right to, cannot even ignore the facts of this case in a previous proceeding. OXVII, R 4, The special procedure for dismissing the decree under CPC was sustained by the claimant's request where special conditions were required to keep the order under the applicant O XXXVII, R 4, CPC. Was able to prove. The limit was covered under Article 181 of the Law Act, 1908, which provided for a three-year limitation hearing for such application. The trial court failed to consider whether the plaintiff was a competent authority
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
