Find a Lawyer

MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD. versus QASIM HUSSAIN SHAH

The evidence on record shows that both the non-involvement of the necessary party as the effective influence of the Civil Procedure Code Order II Suits OI, R 3, the plaintiff / applicant to the CPC parties, shows that both Work orders against which he claims payment is due. Created in the name of the relevant Executive Engineer and not in the name of the respondent / respondent, but payment receipts in respect of the said work orders were also issued in the name of the Executive Engineer of the applicant in the name of the respondents. The work order was given as if he was responsible for payment alone, which can only be decided in the presence of the Executive Engineer, even if the objection has not been raised by the defendant / defendant in this case. Applicant's ability to implement it at the trial stage and not at the appeal stage. An attempt was made to The Executive Engineer was called as a party to the proceedings Syed Executive Engineer was not called as a witness in support of his case. Under the circumstances, the Executive Engineer must be held in the position of a compulsory party to act accordingly. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Dhirkot lawyer