AIX, R 6 and Section 12 (2) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application Defendant responds instead of investigating the ex parte draft and appealing the former Parliament Declaration for fraudulent and misrepresentation litigation. The decision of the previous decision was made after the designated services, section 12 (2), which the CPC passed before the court, which was eventually dismissed before the High Court of the plaintiff. , Which filed an application for the execution of the injunction and the defendant / decision, another application under section 12 (2). Was filed. ), The trial court dismissed the CPC, which had reached finality to the High Court, to revert to the previous judgment and decree seeking final judgment, which was dismissed by the trial court for non-hearing. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Court of Appeal, the order remanded the same case to the trial court so that he could decide, which order of the appellate court was constitutionally challenged in the first round of litigation. , The decision and order of the trial court were challenged by applying under section 12 (2), CPC, which eventually came to fruition. The verdict was pronounced, but with the intention of none other than the debt owed to the judgment of approximately five years after expiry, section 12 (2), reversed its application under CPC, which the trial court granted in a reasonable order. Disapproved by the source, the appellate court upheld the appeal and upheld all such findings and set it aside. Reasonable by the trial court on another application under section 12 (2)
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
