MUHAMMAD TAHIR versus EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL PJSC
Sections 9 and 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 12 (2) of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O. Sections), RR 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145, together with erroneous representations, Invalid Address Alternate Service High Court decision by Prosecutor Defendant Inquiry The banking court, on the other hand, tried to reject the decision that it was not executed because its incorrect address was mentioned in the plaintiff. The process was also provided with relevant provisions for the process in Sindh for the convenience and wider public interest of the Chief Court Rules (OS) and if applicable in accordance with the letter and spirit. He was then a man would create unnecessary multiplication of proceedings before the court to explain the former. Efforts were made for effective services to the parties. Neither Belfast complied with the relevant provisions nor did the Additional Registrar of the High Court make any inquiries. Service ncy and substitute ordered applicant's address was invalid during the entire proceeding and no attempt was made to provide personal service at the correct address and an order was received against the defendant on false statement, Which was clearly moved by the wrong address of the defendant mentioned in the plaintiff as well as the subsequent address provided by the plaintiff because the defendant's address was invalid and it was never decided to sue on the basis of the wrong address, Therefore, under Section 12 (2), the CPC can be retained on the basis of misrepresentation. The decree passed against the defendant was set aside and the case was sent to the Banking Court upon the filing of the written statement by the defendant.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
