MAZHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Rule 22 (6) and 19 decree the decision of the decision-makers in the execution court claim that the execution court was required to initiate an inquiry whether the decision was properly approved or not said that the application was rejected. The reasoning of the judgment was that the execution court had the power to amend and amend the decree, so the said application could be denied under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001 and it There was no need to file an appeal against the judgment and decree, for the purpose of implementing the decree. The impeachment court may hold all the powers of a tribunal, but that does not mean that the said court could add, alter, or revoke the very order, whether the decision was obtained through fraud. Execution, or the exclusion of the satisfaction of a decree, because it greatly affects the accuracy of the decree and the executing court may decide whether to go beyond that order. It cannot, however, determine any objection to the execution of this decision and must acknowledge that a valid decree exists, before the appropriate decision can be reached by a judicial creditor attacking the decree. The court's appeal, dismissed in circumstances, for failure to do so
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
