Find a Lawyer

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

Section 18 (6) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 2 (2) (3) and 73 Payment Payment Act (IV of 1966), Section 15 Execution Suit for Receiving Dividend Bond Debt The decision was made in favor of the Financial Institutions Banking Court, while implementing this decree, entertaining two petitions for an undisclosed distribution of execution money, a petition filed by a labor leader who paid. Was a decree holder from the authority under the Payment Act, 1936, and another application was filed by the customs authority on the basis of protection provided under section 73 (3), the High Court Banking Court's review of the PC against the order passed by the judge dismissed the application was taken down by the High Court Division bench. That is, the objectors were not the petitioners in the meaning of section 2 (3), CPC, therefore, they could not, in the present section, seek the provisions of section 73 of the High Court, the CPC Division's accuracy bench. Some are certain that whether the application is eligible for the requirements of section 73, CPC Objects was not a decree holder because no order was passed by a court in favor of which payment was made under the Waggs Act, 1936 Is an order / order issued by the authority. Section 2 (2), wages in the meaning of the CPC was not a decree and as such, the application cannot be considered as applicable under section 73, the CPC may resort to executing the order of the authority only. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Payments Act, 1936, was set aside and the judgment decided in this case. famous high court advocate from Miran Shah lawyer