FARID ULLAH KHAN KUNDI versus RUSTAM KHAN
A IX, R 13 and O XX, R 5 Harmful Prosecution Suits Defendant / His Testimony On Rejection of Case / Related Date and Plaintiff's Evidence for Damages on Ex-Parte Decree Due to Absence of His Lawyer It was summoned, that the trial court's verdict by the appellate court had advanced against the plaintiff in that date when neither he nor his lawyer nor his student's witnesses were present to the defendant. The absence of his lawyer did not cause delay, but the trial court could not take further action. In the relevant date, the plaintiff's trial court may have obtained the presence of the defendant's lawyer due to the absence of the witnesses' testimony. There can be no difference in the verdict after the contest between the former party or the parties while passing the order of the former parliament. Neither the pleas were cited by the parties and the same was examined in the justified position of the law applicable to the suit, nor any conclusions were made regarding the matters to which the plaintiff filed section 2 (2). (14) and without the compliance with the provisions of O XX, R 5, Hefazard and Slip were the only approved ampegund directory available. The oil Court decision will not be approved. The trial court was bound to protect the defendant's interest on the basis that there was nothing in the trial, which was preceded by the trial, and must be recorded on the record by the plaintiff before the verdict was rendered. Must pass through the material and shall be judged in accordance with applicable law. The plaintiff of the type of case filed a timely appeal against the ex parte decree, which is called section 96 dec.
family advocate from Gadoon Amazai lawyer
