Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RASHID HUSSAIN SHAMSI versus SYED HAMEED-UD-DIN

A. XXXVII, Rides 1 and 2 suit for recovery of money based on dishonest checks, failure to hear a case filed by the sixth plaintiff in defense of this case, the trial court imposed the terms of the suit. The lawsuit was filed for failure to comply. Vacation Approval Time for Defendant's Defenses Once a defendant has a conditional leave to appear and defend in a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant can only appear and be present The defendant can defend the case only when the leave allowed for the defense is met. Meet the conditions imposed by the trial court, the claim of the plaintiff in the trial was justified The plaintiff accepted full responsibility for payment of the plaintiff's part and the plaintiff was given a post-date check I was there to pay the claimant's share. The High Court refused to interfere in their decision to invest in the joint venture agreement and the trial court rejected the order passed in favor of the plaintiff's appeal.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM v. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias SERAJ 2014 MLD 1361
• Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS RIZVI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad 2014 PLC(CS) 1363
• Malik BABAR v. State 2014 YLR 1363
• HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK LIMITED v. ABID NISAR 2014 CLD 1367
• TANVEER AHMED SHAH v. RENT CONTROLLER, FAISAL CANTT., KARACHI 2014 CLC 1372
• INAYAT ALI v. State 2014 YLR 1372
• MEMON MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman 2014 PCrLJ 1378
• S. ABDUL MANNAN MUTTAQI v. DEFENSE HOUSE AUTHORITY 2014 MLD 1380

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

divorce advocates from Fort Abbas lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes