OV, R 24, O XXXVII, Rr 1 & 2 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 159 Recovery Suite Scope and Procedure for Personally Seeking Summons on Defendant's Vacation Presentation and Defense The request for was canceled because the defendant was banned from doing so. That he was imprisoned and that the summons was not properly presented OXXVII, the validity limit for leave to enter and defend the case under RR 1 & 2, CPC Tenant under Article 159 of the Act 1908 There was a day that would go on in his service. The summons service did not meet the requirements of the law on the clerk of the student jail where the boundaries were to be determined by the legislature from the date of service, nor can the history of knowledge be traced to any word. It must be understood in the ordinary sense, and the deviation will, in the ordinary sense, present a case of reckless recovery of the legislature, during the trial, the trial court shall present to the defendant a prisoner for summons to serve and a copy of the plaintiff. Should have been ordered to do. The powers conferred under the OV, R24, that the CPC courts should do concrete justice instead of knocking on a person for some formal endeavor, under the circumstances no summons was properly complied with. , The dismissal of the application on the basis of the limitations was not valid. A XXXVII, the case filed under RR 1 & 2, was issued in Form No. 4 of the Annex B of the CPC, under which the copy of the claimant must remain. Because he was in jail so the copy of the plaintiff could not be obtained. His lawyer cannot be expected to obtain a copy of the case once the defendant is sent to defendant.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
