Find a Lawyer

RANA M. SIDDIQUE versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR

The case for sections 24 and 6 instructed the plaintiff to submit the suit for deposit before the trial court deposits, although the defendant was not obliged to allow a maximum period of thirty days, but the aforesaid. The time period specified for the purpose should be reasonable and should not be disclosed to the court for any rigor and for that purpose the appropriate time was to be set within a period of thirty days, before the Punjab Pre-Emission Act of 1991 The delivery of Section 24 was mandatory as it would result in penalties for the case being dismissed. Failure to comply with the court order, but the court must act decisively in compliance with the said section and such provisions should not be used in a manner that would not only cause financial harm to the parties, but also their The harassment court may also extend. Once, under section 24 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991, it is prescribed to be involved once in labor, but within a period of thirty days from the date of the institution suit and not more than thirty days after the e-Punjab Pre-Emission Act of 1991 As the provisions of section 24 were mandatory in nature, the trial court was obliged not only to make a reasonable and reasonable period for depositing the gold deposit within a period of thirty days, but also to specify the amount to be deposited. To avoid any misunderstanding of the specific amount of gold deposited by the defendant during the said period by the defendant. list of advocates from Gambet lawyer