A XXXVII, R 3, sections 96 and 148 Litigation Act (IX of 1908), suit for recovery of money on the basis of section 5 pro note, failure to supply the protective equipment at the time appointed by the defendant, Extension of court to defendant's request O XXXVII, R 2 (2), refusing to approve the decree on plaintiff's request in the CPC case, before defendant's extension before the expiry of time. The defendant's dismissal of the case related to the trial of a security furnishing hearing was that his application was unlawfully dismissed because the defendant Was accused of prosecuting such a failure which was not challenged in the amendment, and the trial court rejected the request and extended it. Responding to the defendant's request, the defendant lost the case after a full clothing trial, thus, he could not be allowed to take a plea that had no benefit in the trial. It was Possibly it was diverted: such a request, when the plaintiff did not file a case on merit, when the High Court refused to be varied or reversed, or the outcome of the trial. I was refused to intervene under circumstances r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
