Find a Lawyer

SHAHEEN MULTI FOODS (PVT.) LTD. (FLOUR MILLS) THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE versus ABDUL HAFEEZ RAJPUT

A. IX, R 9 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra-Court of Appeal is evidence of applicant or his lawyer's failure. The appellant challenged the order passed by a single bench of the High Court under which it allowed the petition filed under O IX, R. 9, the CPC and the various judicial application related to the payment of Rs 50,000 appellant were restored and it was stated that the defendants did not show cause for their absence as well as the absence of their lawyer. Also supported the decision on the merit. The unanimous order passed by the High Court Single Bench of the Technical Courts was in accordance with the law and the same principle was based on the prescribed principles. Was made from which the intra-court appeal was dismissed. In range

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• BANK OF PUNJAB v. FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED 2010 CLD 903
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 907
• Mst. AFROZE alias AFSHAN v. State 2010 MLD 907
• ZOHAIB HASAN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2010 YLR 908
• MEHBOOB AHMAD SOOMRO v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad 2010 PLC(CS) 911
• SADIQ BROTHERS v. II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KARACHI South 2010 MLD 913
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 914
• M. MUHAMMAD SHAFI & CO. v. A. REHMAN ENTERPRISES 2010 CLD 920

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

patent advocate from Head Marala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes