PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR versus MUHAMMAD LATIF
Section ????? Declaration of land offered for sale by the open auctioneer to the plaintiffs / officials, who said that there was a successful bidder in the auction, the auction subject to the approval of the competent authority which The Deputy Commissioner was the Deputy Commissioner, who was able to accept or reject the auction bid, rather than send it to the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner did not approve the bid and rejected it on the basis that the bid was less than the allotted price. The Additional Commissioner took the auction for refusal. True because the highest bid offered by the claimant was far above the reserved price, the specific price was Rs 35,000, while the bid offered by the claimant was Rs 54,200 and the claimant complied with the terms and conditions. And submitted 1/4 simultaneously and remained there after the contract did not confirm the auction, the plaintiff sued the FAF for a declaration that they were the highest bidder The suit was the landlord, but his right to file a written statement was dismissed by the trial court under O VIII, R 10, CPC and the defendant filed a lawsuit despite the strike. In his written statement, the trial court rejected the case filed by the plaintiff, saying that it was banned by the appellate court below, however, the claim was dismissed and the defendants Appellate court order was imposed under the affirmation suit. The ground was already viewed as a vessel for trial court to reject the bid as well as wrongdoing and mental application, and Malala to cancel the auction.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
