VENU G. ADVANI versus TRADESMAN INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Section 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXVIH, R 5 Prior to the judgment of property attachment rule, the plaintiff had sought the suit property attachment before the decree was passed on the basis that the defendant was forfeiting the property and The banker is about to withdraw the money. At any stage, the Judiciary Court has approved against the defendant, on oath or in any other way, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any order passed against him. The intention was to disrupt the decree, at any stage, to destroy the property. According to the lawsuit, it could pass the order under AOXI III, the defendant had denied the counter-affidavit of the five CPC allegations involved in supporting the plaintiff's affidavit, but the plaintiff denied any The candidate was not filed with the fact that no specific allegation was mentioned in the affidavit. The plaintiff against the defendant and the defendant did not transfer any of his property to anyone before or after the trial, the plaintiff failed M the defendant's intention to attract the provisions of XXXVIII. The first case to be set up, the R 5 CPC application was dismissed under circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
