SH. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ SAITHI versus MIAN SIRAJ AHMAD JAMAL
Sections 13 and 22 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XVII, R3 Deletion of Tenant Technologies Provisions of Civil Code of Conduct, 1908 Applicable Appeals Court Remands the Rental Controller for the Second Time The case has been adjourned without any special conditions. Although no special order was approved for the preparation of evidence on the postponement date, the tenant was represented by a lawyer who was fully aware of the process for which the matter was being rented. The man appeared before the hearing and his hearing was adjourned. For this, the tenants were merely banning high tech- niques so that the date for the preparation of the proof was not specifically specified, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, proceeding before the tenant. Were not enforced, because under the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Ordinance of Rent Restriction, 1959, the rent controller acted as a private rent controller, justifying Ed to pass the order under his discretion. Interfere with any order of the Rent Controller under which any arbitrary or serious appellate court could not be considered Was not justified under which another remand decision of the appellate court was not sustained and was set aside and another appeal was allowed under the circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
