In the preceding injunction, AIX, R 13 and section 115, proceedings were presented in the case, separating the defendant, but later, when he himself did not appear, the order was passed in favor of the plaintiff's trial, Refused to reject the order under O IX. R13, CPC, Because this was not a previous order, the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the decision was unilaterally approved, therefore, O IX, R 13, CPC The provisions were applicable, the Valetti plaintiff did not allege. The jurisdiction exercised by the courts below did not have such jurisdiction and / or such courts failed to exercise their exclusive jurisdiction, or such courts exercised unlawful jurisdiction or The request for a review of material irregularities was only valid if used by the courts below. The jurisdiction was not imposed by law or failed to comply with the jurisdiction, so the exercise of jurisdiction limited the scope of review to illegal or material misconduct. In cases where the subordinate courts had exceeded their jurisdiction or refused to exercise the jurisdiction guaranteed by the law, the plaintiff did not claim that the courts below had acted unlawfully and had violated the law. Did not participate in the legal proceedings and approved it in violation of decisions / orders. Law-Ruling High Court Denies Interference in Approval of Lower Appellate Court Amendment, Circumstances Rejected
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
