Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, PESHAWAR CANTT versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Civil Procedure 1908 Section 18 (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), Section 2 (2) (3) and 73 Payment of Payment Act (IV 1936), Section 15 Execution of saleable income distribution bank loan collection The suit was ruled in favor of the financial institution Banking Court, while implementing the decree, two petitions were granted for the undisclosed distribution of execution money. An application was filed by a labor leader who was a decree holder from the authority to pay the salary. The Wages Act, 1936, and other pleas were filed on the basis of the protection provided by the Customs Authority under section 73 (3), banking against the CPC court's amendment against the order passed by the High Court Judge. The Court dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court Plea that the petitioner was that the objectors were not the petitioners in the sense of Section 2 (3), CPC, therefore, they were dismissed under Section 73 of the High Court. , The accuracy of the CPC cannot be sought by the Division Bench. In the present case, it could not be ascertained whether the application was eligible for the requirements of section 73 or not, the CPC Objector was not an order taker as no court had passed any order in his favor. Under which the directive / order issued under the Payment of Act by the Authority, 1936, Section 2 (2) for the collection of wages, CPC had no interpretation and, as such, the application was made under section 73 Cannot be applied under, the CPC may resort to only obeying the authority's order. The Payments Act, 1936, the manner in which the High Court Division itself lawer from fb area from Rohri lawyer