Find a Lawyer

SYED PHOOL BADSHAH versus ADBP THROUGH MANAGER, PESHAWAR BRANCH

Section 9 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OVII, R7 includes a finance facility announcing a lawsuit for recovery of scope banking court finance to be specifically described, Which was not valid in this case. An application for amendment of the Plaintiff's memorandum was not filed to include the convenience of the said finance, and this was not the case before the Banking Court could not issue a Banking Court Order in respect of any such amount. Prior to this, the case was not appealed. Allowed, the decisions and orders of the courts were set aside and the matter was presented to the Banking Court for strict decision as per law.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• MEHMOOD HUSSAIN v. PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT 2012 SCMR 1539
• Dr. AZIM-UR-REHMAN KHAN MEO v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2012 SCMR 1545
• Mst. SHAFQAT PARVEEN v. MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AMJAD 2012 SCMR 1602
• Ch. QAISER MEHMOOD v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Government Communication and Works 2012 SCMR 1606
• Raja MUJAHID MUZAFFAR v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2012 SCMR 1651
• FEROZUDDIN v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI EAST 2012 SCMR 1679
• SHOUA JUNEJO v. PIA 2012 SCMR 1681
• Dr. MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR alias Dr. SHAHID v. State 2012 SCMR 1685

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

power of attorney advocate Jatoi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes