Applicants to failure to appear in legal proceedings and failure of the defendant to appear before the trial court for execution of the suit on the basis of the AX VII, Rr 2, 3 and Section 12 (2) Pro Note The import was released. For the hearing, the declaration notice was issued, but nevertheless the defendant failed to seek leave of the court to defend the trial case due to the absence of the defendant again, in favor of the plaintiff. The party decree was approved, which was challenged by the defendants. The defendant / petitioner had filed an application for separation of the ex parte Doki Pro Pro Note on the basis of which legal action was taken between the parties in the year 2003 and in 2006 due to the repeated absence of the defendant. The decree was approved and the defendant's purchase was a debatable question for the court. It was clearly assumed that the defendant was trying to delay the execution by any means so as to exclude the plaintiff / defendant from taking advantage of the injunction since it was approved in his favor. has been done. And a fair portion of the award money was submitted through an attachment request and was not discharged, excluded, the decree holder / plaintiff is allowed to pay the pre-tax deduction in accordance with the law. To withdraw money.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
