Sections 8, 42 and 54 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 ??? Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O IX, Rr 6, 7, 13 and section 115 suit, possession and injunction restraining case transfer case Keeping the Ex parte Decree Separated In the due date for the hearing, when the defendant was found absent, the proceedings were taken against the former party and the ex parte order was passed by the trial court against it when it said that the order was to be executed. If given, the defendant dismissed the request to appear in court. But the trial court held that after the dismissal of the petition and appeal, the defendant had filed a revision request, which had to be kept under Article 160 of the Limitation Act 1908 to set aside the previous party decree. A term was set aside, but beyond the period mentioned in the petition filed by the defendant, however, after the proceedings against the former party against the defendant, the case was filed to record the plaintiff's prior evidence and order. Before the nomination can be approved, the central case moves the defendant to another court transfer court instead of issuing fresh notices. Denied, it has been observed that after the defendant had already been transferred to another court in the case, it was the legal duty of the exchange court to serve the absent defendant once again, even before the defendant's previous action. Even in the presence of an order for and that will not deprive the defendant of the right to receive such notice, the defendant was fully successful in dealing with the pleasures of the superior. The court remains in the jurisdiction of section 115, CPC, even otherwise
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
