Find a Lawyer

HABIT) BANK LTD. versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

CPC Appearance and Disappearance of Civil Procedure Code Order IX Section 15 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O IX, R 13 Tenant's illegal prosecution case was dismissed and ordered to be dismissed Given that the tenant was absent on the due date for cross examination, the landlord's evidence was compensated for the cross-examination of the landlord's testimony and the tiling of the tenant's lawyer's affidavit to adjourn the matter. The case was adjourned for another date which was postponed to another date for the same purpose. As a tenant, the landlord and his lawyer did not appear and filed an affidavit for proof when the tenant's move was closed and a case was settled for arguments on another date. The decision was announced and a withdrawal order was approved when no tenant was present again. Against the request of the tenants under Order IX, R 13, the CPC filed by the tenant was dismissed. The lawyer for the trust tenant was unable to state whether the rent was removed after the order of disposal of the case. Cedar requested for a certified copy of the order or simply for information on the alleged information from the reader, he remained silent for a long time and did not want to know the exact position. Following up on the case and periodically questioning his lawyer and disregarding his conduct that the tenant controller dismissed the tenant's request under OIX, R13, did not apply to the CPC There was no ambiguity and there was no entry for a minute family advocate from Samma Satta lawyer