Find a Lawyer

NEELUM VALLEY DEVELOPMENT BOARD THROUGH CHAIRMAN versus MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE

A VII, Rr 2, 11, O IX, R 13, Articles 12 (2) and 151 suit did not appear despite the service of the plaintiff's defendants and the former part of the trial court proceeded against them. The former filed the evidence and dismissed the defendants 'case challenging the plaintiffs' challenge, saying that a decree and written statement were filed through a regular trial based on prior judgment and fraud and fraud and on this issue. Plaintiff was asked to dismiss that because of the regular case for holding the prior decision aside and the disqualification of the decree under section 12 (2), c The PCA was obliged to reject the plaintiff under R 11, Order VII, the CPC seed suit was also resisted due to the limitation, the plaintiff filed another application for trial under section 12. Filed (2), CPC and alternatively, he requested that the case be considered as an application under section 151, after the CPC trial court heard the parties on this request, Transfer action denied. As the petition was made and the plaintiff was rejected under O VII, R 11, the accuracy of the CPC was the natural jurisdiction of the court to change the nature of one action to another and the party is accused of He receives a verdict or judgment from the court, declaring fraud and fraud. It will not be allowed to cut the circumstance of the fraud because the fraud failed the most serious process and the appeal was accepted and the defendant / appellant to prosecute the application under section 12 (2). Appeal filed by, C registration advocate from Khuiratta lawyer