Find a Lawyer

MIQDAD HUSSAIN versus JUDGE GUARDIAN COURT NO.1

Para 1 27 Legislative Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 85 and 87 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra-Court Appeal / Copy of a Copy / Decision / Decision / Decision Required Appellant's Appeal for Release The trial court against the certified copies of the two memos issued by the Establishment Division said that the copy agency had refused to issue two memos that a copy of the copy was made by the appellant. The constitutional petition cannot be filed. Against the refusal order of the copy agency, which was dismissed by a single High Court judge, the appellant had filed an intra-court appeal so nothing was brought on the appellant's record to show that it was in the custody of the copy-copying agencies. Under which there are rules for providing copies of records. The control of the Deputy Commissioners, Commissioners and Financial Commissioners was adopted by the High Court and they were applied to the copying agencies in the control of the district. Courts say that manuals will not apply IPSO factor to copy agencies unless these rules / instructions are adopted by High Court Para 1 27 of the Punjab Copy Agency Manual. So the person applying for the copy of the copy should have the copy of the document and the details of his objection to the question about the validity of the copy already in his possession, but the case of the appellant is his Was not covered. The copying agency, under the control of the district courts, was not in the custody of the original memos, which were copied by the appellant while the original was one of them. top advocates from Astore lawyer