Arts 199 and 185 (3) in the payment of the rent withdrawal order was accepted by the default collector on 21 5 1973, which it repeated on 24 5 1973, while the respondent's request was dismissed against the order dated December 21, 1973. ? Dismissed but accepted by the Board of Revenue. Such an order on revision reverted to the High Court's view that the applicant did not come to the court with clear hands and the Collector did not appoint this order on 24 order 1973 to expel the applicant. On the one hand, it was not beneficial to send the matter back to the Member. In order to settle the review request, the Board of Revenue requested the applicant that the order of the Collector was mentioned in the 24 24 1973 only. It was repeating the order, dated 21 197 197, passed by him, and indicates that the order was challenged in appeal and then by amendment. That the High Court challenging the order of 24 5 1973 was challenged by the fact that the petitioner did not come to court. He had a clean hand
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
