SAUDI PAK COMMERCIAL BANK LTD versus UMAR BILAL (PVT.) LTD
Section 12 Ex-Decree Wrong Address, Request for Submission of Two Affidavits Plaintiff requested to have the previous decree set aside that the process was done on the wrong lines; Filed an affidavit on which the affidavit was filed. The process was 4 and the other was different in effect, the defendant filed two separate affidavits with two separate addresses without any explanation. One of the two affidavits was false and the defendant committed himself guilty of criminal liability. Revealed that the service was affected by an alleged error of address that was, after a deliberation, not served truthfully but through an alteration of the Advocate Respondent, on 19 December 2006, therefore Under the XI, R66 was aware of the proceedings of the previous party decree on the date of service of the notice. The CPC and the first application, filed under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Restoration) Ordinance 2001, were filed on 6-6 2006, a period of 21 days from the date of knowledge set by law, ex parte. The request to set aside the decree was not only for merit but it was also banned, therefore, the High Court refused to interfere in passing the previous party decree. The petition against the defendant was dismissed in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
