NASCO PACKAGING (PVT.) LTD. versus SHEIKH INAM-UL-HAQ
An IX, Rr 6, 13 and O XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 Qunun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 133 accused of being a person in charge of recovering money on the basis of a Check Information Project test report. went. Defendant's factory began proceeding against the defendant on the basis of such report, requesting the separation of the previous action order on the ground that it was said that this person was neither a defendant's employee. Nor is he entitled to receive summonses, therefore, the defendant cannot be served. It is understood that it is legal to reject such a request and to approve a decree through a trial after the plaintiff's testimony is allowed to be examined after the plaintiff's evidence is recorded by the trial. As a defendant, the defendant has the right to act in accordance with the law and may have the opportunity to defend the case against him. Nothing was available on the record to determine how such a person is considered to be in charge of the defendant's company that the report of the processor server is not reported. How such a person's parents or ID card number specifically denied his or her relationship with the person, thus, the trial court was obliged to compile such a case and allow him to present evidence. Granted, the prior action order was not a legally durable claim. The trial could still be pending after the previous proceedings and the refusal to examine the witnesses presented by the plaintiff in the previous evidence was illegal, resulting in the court's failure to abort the judgment because of the abortion of justice.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
