In a suit for recovery instituted by A against B, despite the summons of suit having been duly served upon B, he did not appear on the date fixed in the summons on 1st March 1993. The court consequently on 1st March 1993 passed an ex parte order against B and listed the case for 3rd April 1993 for ex parte evidence of A.
In a suit for recovery instituted by A against B, despite the summons of suit having been duly served upon B, he did not appear on the date fixed in the summons on 1st March 1993. The court consequently on 1st March 1993 passed an ex parte order against B and listed the case for 3rd April 1993 for ex parte evidence of A. Correct Answer Both A and B are correct
মোঃ আরিফুল ইসলাম
Feb 20, 2025