AL-WAQAR CORPORATION versus RICE EXPORT CORPORATION
O IX, R 9 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 Plaintiff filed an application for rehabilitation of the case under O IX, R 9, CPC, which was dismissed for non-prosecuting plaintiff, with the said request, The late petitioned for condolences and emphasized that the evidence had been filed and that, instead of dismissing the case for illegal proceedings, his recovery request should have been decided on his own merits, due to illness. His lawyer could not discuss the matter. In the affidavit petition, the plaintiff also requested that he find out the facts of dismissal on 25 1 2010 and that the request for immediate reinstatement was transferred on 27 1 2010, evidence in this case has already been filed and that in the interest of justice. It may be that matters include the decision about the rule of law in the case, but these principles were not even more technically applied but were constructed to promote them again. Instead of prosecuting the plaintiff in the absence of a technical knock on the cause of justice, it would be in the interest of justice to have the plaintiff rescheduled with the last and last chance and discuss the case with no excuse at a later date. The default was to allow the plaintiff's petition to pay the defendant a cost of Rs 20,000 and to re-examine the plaintiff carefully at his original position, so that the matter could be decided on merit. Restored so that the matter can be dealt with at a later date. Ask for a refund
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
