ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN versus SAQUIB RICE MILLS
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Sections 3 (3) (6), 6 (1) and 11 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 9 and 115 respondents' decision against the Government of the respondents was finalized. Cannot reopen. Petition filed by the respondents regarding the cases where the respondents have already been entitled to take possession of the rice mill and when the seizure has already been received, objections to the execution of the final decision. Cannot open via. The court, the High Court, shall, in approving such decree, restrict itself to the trial court's order and jurisdiction. No inaccuracies or gross misrepresentation were identified by the applicant. The suit, which may have influenced his final decision, was filed with merit, and was not barred by any Ardina clause. Ness ie Rice Milling Control and Development (Canceled) Ordinance, 1977
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
power of attorney advocate Mandi Faizabad lawyer
