Sections 9, 10 (9), 11 and 17 apply for leave to defend the suit for recovery of loan amount, the application for a condition, the enforcement of the jurisdictional interim order and the final decree, which have been separately and independently granted The order of the scope banking court was passed. An interim decree in which the defendant decides to request leave and subject to a conditional discount supply bank guarantee failed to submit a bank guarantee, and the case was eventually issued that legal banking. The court had the authority to approve an interim decree which, after consideration, was not disputed. The banking court had approved the interim order in the amount of Rs 12,398,584 and the final order was approved at Rs 38,075,958 and the said decree was separate and independent and was approved in connection with two separate sums. In which the entire plaintiff's claim was made. The bank suit did not have a decision on the final order but was approved by default in the SD The fulfillment of the bank guarantee was not integrated into the final decree in which the defendants The right to challenge the same principle of merger was granted, limited only to the circumstances where the lower court's order was amended or modified by the appellate court, which would result in the merger of the injunctions. The lower court's case with the High Court matters through the interim order was final and final and was irreversible by any proceedings which were not later incorporated into the final order in the interim order made in this case and both Ah!
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
