Sections 42, 54 and 56 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R 11, O XXXIX, RR 1 and 2 Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Article 60 (13) Interim Order Prohibition, Governmental Business Failure to cancel the claimant's cancellation of the delivery of the vehicle to the plaintiff was agonizing over the delivery of the vehicle to the defendant and the distribution of the supply of vehicles on the basis of the lowest bid in different types of vehicles. The demand was made in the tender notice and the contract was to be awarded accordingly, not supported by any evidence but the basis for future need. The increase in cars or show a lack of condition that authorities reserve the right to change the terms of the agreement were not bid or courts. Either the terms of the tender notice have to be changed or the contract has to be doubled on the basis of an interim order as per the vehicle in the form of a restraining order in the vehicle delivery contract. Which was against the policy of the law, therefore, it was dismissed that the appellate court refused to interfere with the order, the application for a temporary injunction was dismissed without dismissing the trial. Thus, rejecting the summary without dismissing it was not legal and the same matter was set aside. The appeals court had settled the matter in accordance with the law on remand to the trial court.
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
