Find a Lawyer

MATHELA versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Civil Code of Conduct 1908 Article 73 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 115 is not properly exhibited in the substantive evidence document, along with the original copy of the RL II record, along with a certified copy of the Wakefield Trial Court Oral and documentary evidence has also been prepared. An appeal was dismissed under and against the plaintiff's order. The appellate court argued to the defendants that the two courts below relied on a document that was not properly exhibited even though RL II was not properly shown in accordance with the provisions. Convention evidence, 1984, still allowed both courts to consider the original copy of RL II, where no jurisdictional defect was identified and no legal fault existed, the High Court following Refused to interfere with court decisions. The High Court took serious notice of the fact that the cases were decided against the government as public cases. The men failed to carry out the cases with due diligence and effectively, resulting in the collusion of the convicts with the Government Treasury. The High Court directed the provincial government to set up a committee to investigate the matter, according to which the amendment was dismissed. list of advocates from Jacobabad lawyer