categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned
document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Page No.# 10/13
direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued under Section 7 (falling
within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically
opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned document, it lost its
efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued
under Section 7 (falling within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned
document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued
under Section 7 (falling within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically
opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned document, it lost its
efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued
under Section 7 (falling within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned
document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Page No.# 10/13
direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued under Section 7 (falling
within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned
document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the
direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued under Section 7 (falling
within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned
document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the
direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued under Section 7 (falling
within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
categorically opined that since the impugned order therein
was an unsigned document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the
direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued under Section 7 (falling
within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned
Page No.# 4/13
document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule ... Chapter XVIII. Therefore, the
direct applicability of Rule 26(3) to documents issued under Section 7 (falling
within Demand and Recovery) may be limited unless
shown
to be Dubulai Begum aged about 45 years. There is no document of the father
of the petitioner to show that ... list or extract thereof would be admissible in evidence. Filing of
an unsigned or unauthenticated or uncertified copy of voters list sought to be
relied
