A IX, R 13 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), section 42 suit for declaration, petition for settlement of ex parte decree, no summons was issued to the defendant through trial trial at trial. , And the defendant was not released to receive his attendance. The answer to the claim is that the fact that the defendant's services were not possible through the ordinary means was not offered by the record, the alternative was to be served where the court is satisfied that there is some reason to believe that the defendant himself. Keeps them out of the way. The summons could not be submitted for the purpose of avoiding the service or for any other reason There was nothing in the record that the defendant was avoiding the service, which would have led the trial court to substitute services. That is, the trial court did not arrange such haste. On the laws and procedures, but in the process, a person was deprived of his right to self-defense, the publication in a newspaper should be made as a final purpose. The defendant's services did not show the other defendants serious contenders except that the applicant was shamefully ex parte although he died due to his death did not bring the applicant's legal legacy on the record. The impeachment decisions and orders of the two courts were set aside for the petitioner to defend himself, and the application for the separation of the former parties' dremers was granted and the trial was decided for merit. The hearing was held in the trial court according to which the review was accepted Or
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
