ARIF ALI HAIDER versus ZULTEC (PVT.) LIMITED, PAKISTAN THROUGH EMPLOYEE/MANAGER
A. XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 and Section 96 After the defendant has been discharged to appear for a suit for collection and defense, the defendant has applied for extension of the deposit period. Was obliged to decide the trial court's trial, requesting an extension of time to submit defendant's money when the trial court's decision and his request were not processed Was approved, without the request of the mind, which was not in accordance with the law Posted in the Respondent as the plaintiff's company senior accountant and In connection with the payment of consideration in Spelling general was deposited enough money in this case, it did not provide any details, so that was also missing such specifications in response to the leave application. Generally the decision on the dispute between the parties was taken on leave to defend the petition, read in the Jostoposition for defense position, not affected by the trust. The trial court's decision in the case of trial was not reached. , The parties needed to include evidence to prove their respective disputes as a defense. According to the defendant, in the eyes of the law, it was not a misconception that the condition for providing security was based on the counter-FI's money, raising a hearing issue that needed to be investigated, Due to which they were not available to a large extent. Under the law of imposing a bank guarantee provision, important features must necessarily interfere and invalidate an invalid order.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
