SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED
The plaintiff, approved by the High Court with the consent of the parties of the Sindh Chief Court's Rule Q 257 Law Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 129 (e), asserts that the verdict in the case of the settlement was orally passed by the High Court Judge. But it was not on that day that the plaintiff claimed that the Judge had signed the decree on 26 3 1994 when he had resigned as a High Court Judge. It was related to the fact that the Judges, as a matter of governance, signed all the orders, decisions, or decrees of that date in such orders, decisions or decrees. Such immediate pensions cannot be easily displaced or even with the consent of the parties, even if it is considered that the defendant did not specifically deny the plaintiff's allegation. Would be to base the assumption that the judge signed and signed the date on which the order, decree or decision was made.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
