Find a Lawyer

FARID versus MUHAMMAD KHURSHID

Section 115, OV, Rr 16, 18, 19 and O IX, R 13 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), the section 42 suit declared by the trial court by substituting alternate service aside, under the previous judgment and injunction. After the summons was issued against the plaintiffs and finally a statement was made in the newspaper and a recording of prior evidence was issued to the plaintiff after the ex parte decree was issued, the trial court filed the petition filed by the defendant to keep the ex parte decree separate. Was deleted But the appellate court set aside the previous party's decree and the original case was reinstated and sent to civil court for a good verdict. The validity record revealed that the summons was issued against the defendants and that the confession on the leaves was a note of bail in which the accused could not be identified. The given address was obliged by the trial court to ask for the defendants' new addresses, but instead the court ordered the newspapers to declare what was wrong in the process when the processor server responded. Either avoidance or denial of service was reported by. Defendants were not properly presented that the appellate court's order was absolutely correct, fair, just and in accordance with the established rules of justice, which requested interference, and so on Retained, but with slight modification, cost of Rs 3000 was also imposed on the defendants. law firms from Shankiari lawyer