ALL RESIDENTS THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES versus MUHAMMAD ALI
OI 8, O VIII, R 10 & O XLIII, R 1 (b) A derogatory prosecution suit for unlawful dismissal strikes the defense of the defendant, approved under R V 10 of O VIII under trial. The order was suspended, the CPC fined the accused. Not submitting a written statement In the present case, the trial court fixed the date for filing a written statement on the due date after the proceedings for the respondents were present, some of the defendants appeared in court, some of them absent and An absentee defendant sent a request for a postponement which was rejected and an unclean order was passed by the defendant's defense under O VIII, R 10, in which case the CPC defendants They were enforced in a representative capacity, but no application was granted to allow defendants to prosecute A. The competitor was attached to his representative, and the court did not grant any such permission to the contract itself; the trial court overruled the terms of OI, R 8, CPC, P. The trial court did not use its discretion precisely and consciously for these reasons because only after the defendant's attendance, the next date was set for a written statement without understanding the nature of the case. ? That an unknown order be granted, without giving another chance at the due date and rejecting any of the defendants' request to postpone. That the trial court did not consider the plaintiff's case and the decision of the Chief Court in the criminal case between the parties, dismissing the criminal case was malicious.
