Find a Lawyer

BINYAMEEN KHALIL versus RIAZ AHMED RAHI

A. XXXVII, RR 2 and 4 Litigation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 159 and 181 application to keep the ex parte order separately was approved for receipt of money on the basis of pro note. Exclude from Trial Court Plaintiff's Request It was that the non-delivery of a copy of the liquor to him at the time of serving the summons would constitute a special decree in which the decree 225 1997 was rejected. It has shown that it did not provide a copy of the claim to the claimant at the time of service. Demand for summons on leave 225 1997 on this will not be calculated as the limit for filing leave for leave as the defendant cannot be considered as the proper service as the sum offered in this date. Can't be expected from the defendant without the copy of the plaintiff. Proper defense in the leave application should be extended. Will make a special case for The High Court dismissed the order dismissing the erroneous order, dismissing the earlier party order and filing a new leave request to the plaintiff within 10 days after providing a copy of the case. The trial was granted in the trial court to provide an opportunity for r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• KHUSHI MUHAMMAD v. MUZAMMAL KHATOON 2014 CLD 92
• BANK OF PUNJAB v. ACCOUNTABILITY COURT NO.1, LAHORE 2014 PLD 92
• Rana MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 102
• ASAD NAEEM v. State 2014 MLD 102
• AIMS CORPORATION (PVT.) Ltd. v. HABIB BANK LIMITED 2014 CLD 107
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. KASHIF IQBAL through Mst. Fakhar-un-Nisa 2014 MLD 109
• LIAQUAT ALI v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM 2014 CLC 112
• AHSAN ULLAH v. ILLAQA MAGISTRATE 2014 YLR 113

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

list of advocates from Kunjah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes