NASCO PACKAGING (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE versus SHEIKH INAM-UL-HAQ
On the basis of the investigation submitted to the AIM, Rr 6, 13 and O XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 Qunun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 133 provides a report of the summon server service action on the person in charge. On the basis of such report in the defendant's factory for recovery of money, the proceedings against the defendants commenced on the basis that the order of the former proceedings was set aside, stating that this person was neither the defendant nor the defendant. Alias is not an employee or has the option of receiving summonses, therefore, cannot serve on the defendants. It is understood that legally defending such a request and passing a decree after the trial court records the plaintiff's evidence and allowing the plaintiff's testimony to be examined. They have the right to behave according to the law and can have the opportunity to defend the case. Nothing against it was available on record to show how such a person is considered to be in charge of the defendant company that the processor server report did not work. Show the parent or ID card number of such person Defendant specifically denied his relationship with the person, thus, the trial court was obliged to compile such case and present evidence To allow the previous action to be taken was not a legally durable claim. Nevertheless, the former court may be involved in the pending trial and examine the evidence presented by the plaintiff in the prior evidence, which denied the defendant's opportunity to examine the plaintiff's testimony, which was unlawful.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
