Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Review incompetent meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Review incompetent

Review incompetent legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

1950 PLD 38 PRIVY-COUNCIL Judicial Precedent

Review-Seeking amendment of decree with a view to bringing it into conformity with judgment-Prayer involving construction of whole judgment-Review incompetent-Civil Procedure Code (Ceylon), S. 189 (1).

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Review incompetent", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946689

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Review incompetent"

PLD 1950
Privy Council Appeal No. 20 of 1948, decided on 18th April, 1950, from Ceylon.

P L D 1950 Privy Council 38

PIYARATANA UNNANSE and another-.Appellants Versus WAHAREKE SONUTTARA UNNANSE (deceased) and others-Respondents

Court:
SCMR 1983
Criminal Review Petition No. 1-R/Shariat of 1982 in Criminal Petition No. 5-R(S) of 1982, decided on 14th December, 1982.

1983 S C M R 295

RASHID AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Shariat Bench
PLC(CS) 2003
Civil Petition No. 170 of 2001, decided on 3rd October, 2002.

2003 P L C (C

No. 6499 Ex-Sub-Inspector IJAZ AHMAD DAR Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS (SINDH) and another

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 1996
Appeals Nos. 461, 462 and 463 (R) of 1995, decided on. 27th February, 1996.

1996 P L C (C

EHSAN ALI and 2 others Versus SECRETARY, KANA DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
SCMR 1980
Civil Review Petition No. 3-P of 1978 in C.P.S.L.A. No. 53-P of 1976, decided on 25th April, 1979.

1980 S C M R 132

MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN -'Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.-Respondent

Court: --O. XXVI, r. 3-Review-Review petition presented without signature of Senior Counsel being incompetent, its resubmission in Registry of Court barred by 16 days-Explanation for delay coun sel being not aware of requirement of rule-Explanation, held, not satisfactory-Petition dismissed-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188.-Review
CLC 2014
2012-December-18

2014 C L C 1106

DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE, FAISALABAD — Appellant Versus Messrs HUDAYBAIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Mian Zahoor Ahmad and 6 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLC 2002
First Appeal from Order No.82 of 1993, decided on 2nd November, 2001.

2002 C L C 1683

Collector, Sialkot and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

Court: Lahore
PLD 1950
Civil Revision No. 215 of 1942, decided on 901 August, 1919.

PLD 1950 Dacca 33

ABDUL GHANI — Petitioner Versus KHESTA MOHAN ROY and others‑Respondents

Court:
PLC(CS) 1983
‑‑ S. 4 read with Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, Chap. 4, r.' 16 ‑Second review application not disclosing fresh grounds‑-Incompetency of‑Civil servant's application for review of order (passed by Government) disposed of‑Civil servant filing second application for review of original order‑Second application not disclosing fresh ground, not available at time of first application for review‑Held, second review application incompetent and admission of second application on same grounds already agitated, would tantamount to reconsidering correctness of matter already decided on same materials.

1983 P L C (C

FIDA MUHAMMAD RATHORE Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT

Court: SC(AJ&K)
MLD 1989
Civil Revision No. 700/D of 1982, heard on 4th February, 1989.

1989 M L D 449

AMIR AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ULLAH and another‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library