Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

AKHTAR BEGUM versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN


Read with O IX, r 8 &, O XVII, r 2 Activation Act (IX of 1908), hearing of the suit in Articles 163 O IX, r 8 and O XVII, r 2 are used in a certain sense of expression. The determination refers to the final determination of the case, the filing of a written statement, the recording of evidence, the hearing of the decision which results in the decision to issue the notice to the plaintiff's lawyer to issue the notice or serve it on the lawyer. Not proven on record, default, O XVII, r, 2 and O IX, r 8 have no hearing date and are not applicable [Constitution Interpretation]

1981 C L C 146

[(Azad J & K]

Before Abdul Majeed Mallick, J

Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM‑Appellant

versus

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1979, decided on 8th May, 1980.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

---O. IX, r. 8 &, O. XVII, r. 2 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 163‑Words "hearing of suit" in O. IX, r. 8 and O. XVII, r. 2 Used in a definite sense‑Expression refers to determination of questions resulting in final determination of suit, filing of written statement, recording of evidence, hearing of arguments rind rendering judgment‑‑Date in question fixed for notice to counsel of plaintiff ‑Issue of notice or its service on counsel not proved on record'‑Date fixed, held, not date of hearing and provisions of O. XVII, r, 2 and O. IX, r. 8 not applicable.‑[Interpretation of statutes].

Ghulam Farid‑Muhammad Latif v. Central Bank of India Ltd. P L D 1954 Lah. 575 ; Mst. Barkat Bibi v. Fateh Ali P L D 1949 Lah. 434 Grimault & Co. v. Charan Das & Sons A I R 1934 Lah. 237 ; Mahesha Mal Dayal Das v. Muhammad Jamil A I R 1929 Lah. 374 ; Sheikh Muhammad v. Mst. Rukmina Kunwar A I R 1946 All. 506 ; Rarnswaroop Reghuwardayal and others v. Mata Parsad Prabhudayal A I R 1952 Madh. Pra. 8 and Manohar Das v. Birandasi Sheikhupurian A I R 1936 Lah. 280 and Khalid Mahmood v. State P I. D 1970 Lah. 470 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Hanif for, Appellant.

Manzoor Ahmed for Respondents.

Date of Institution : 2nd June, 1979.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates phone number from Sajawal lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.