A. XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 and 4 Suit for collection of money on the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 159 Bill Transfer, etc. Request for defense of undisclosed oath, trial of trial The court granted the separation request from the previous order. After a period of 24 days, the former party order was submitted, seeking leave to appear and defending the case, after hearing the trial court defendant. Had requested that the application be set aside. The preceding injunction should have accompanied the request for leave to appear and defend on that occasion, and that was not accompanied by an application for leave to appear and defend with the affidavit, in which the defendant's case An illegal application for leave to defend was entertained when it applied to set a precedent order, where a suit was applied to defend, a suit was filed Knowledge was not filed with the petition for final party decree, the same action had to be filed within 10 days of service of notice or limit According to the requirement of Article 159 of the Rivers Act, 1908, the application for leave was granted by the Knowledge Tin Affidavit. A. XXX VII, R 3, was the underlying document under CPC that should disclose facts that prove to the plaintiff to consider that he dismissed the request for leave to defend the case without an affidavit. Can't be done. It was made in the Plaintiff that the Defendant did not get the required leave because the Plaintiff entered it.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
