MUHAMMAD SARWA versus FATEH MUHAMMAD
A XVII, R 3 The closure of evidence and the filing of an eviction application were postponed to explain the applicant's case, which led to the respondent's request for a postponement of the request. The defendants did not object to the non-effectual objection, so the respondents will not have the money pending the case or the request for a joint petition to continue to re-examine the case pending that the applicant's source and against such field. Action will be taken under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the CPC.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
property advocate from Shangla lawyer
