ALI BUX THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE versus MST. BHAGBHARI
AIX, R 13 The arguments of the applicants / defendants' counsel for separating the previous party decree against the defendants were that the defendants were agricultural landowners who had been in their possession for the last 40 years. The trial was conducted in the trial court with no service to the applicants. That the applicants had never engaged with any lawyer nor directed to enter any Valattnama, nor had any notice been taken of them by Bailiff or alternative services. In his affidavit, the defendants specifically stated that they were completely unaware of the nature of the case and only knew of the situation when the plaintiffs' alleged counsel disclosed that the suit land. Was changed in their favor. The decision of the civil court; the court of this case rejected the plea on the ground that a Mr. JD Advocate had made his motion to represent the defendants in this case, so the applicants / Defendants' claim that they were wrong was not taken. The record showed a statement filed by Mr J Advocate in the trial court in which he requested the court to postpone the motion to file objections to the order and he appealed to the defendant. He also demanded to submit the timetable. He said that Mr J Advocate had also informed the trial court that he was absent on the defendants 'request for directions and for the same reasons that the defendants' application under IX, R 13, CPC. The trial court dismissed and the appellate court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
