Sections 9 and 10 defraud the defendant in his plea to defend the suit defining the allegedly defamatory, important question relating to the League's defense law and fact, the withdraw amount was withdrawn pay, \ payable / overpayment \ and \ money dispute: no matter the end defendant did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 10 (4) of the Financial Institutions (Ordinance, 2001, the plaintiffs' financial institutions) Was responsible for filing under Section 10 (5) of the Ordinance. 2001, all the documents contained in his plea, which in his opinion could support the important questions of law and fact which were raised by him, the High Court refused to grant leave for defense because it Did not comply with the requirements of Sections 10 (4) and (5). The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, and in addition it did not raise any definitive question about the law or the fact under which evidence may be required in this matter. Account suit and claim fully aligned with suit suits decided in r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
