OV, Rr 17, 20 and O IX, Rr 6 and 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 The preceding injunction, the time limit application aside, the effect boundary information began from the date of knowledge His jurisdiction passed the application order to dismiss the petitioner / defendant's former party decree was dismissed from trial and the appellate courts had, under time restriction, petitioner's position that he should be subject to court notice. Was not submitted and the proceedings were initiated without observing the legal requirements provided for the prior proceedings. The disclosure of the trial court's order sheet on the partial injunction hearing has revealed that the summons has either not been submitted or unsafe, but the personal service of the applicant / defendant's family member or Instead of issuing fresh notices for service, the trial court ordered the service to issue a summons to the clear place along the boundary, the trial court ordered an adjunct service at a strict stage already in accordance with legal requirements. Was. Prior to this, they were not complied with and even the services associated with them were not proved on record. The trial court did not inspect the processor server which pasted the notice in a clear place. And likewise on the first date of hearing, upon the expiry of the judgment of the applicant / respondent, the ex-parte decree was issued which had thirty days to submit the application for the separation of the ex parte decree but the limitation was The count will be from the date of the decree, but where the summons was not properly presented, the boundaries begin with the knowledge of the defendant.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
