Find a Lawyer

JAMILA BEGUM versus ABDULLAH JAN

The appearance and non-appearance of the parties to CPC's Civil Procedure Code Order IX resulted in the removal of the default maintenance suit filed by the plaintiffs O IX, Rr 8 & 9 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 163 and 181 And the application was dismissed by the trial court with time restriction for the restoration of the case filed by the defendants, but in the appeal filed by the defendants against the order of trial, the appellate court found I set the trial court's order and allowed the case to be restored, and challenged the appellate court's order. The petition filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of the case was to be processed under Article 163 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which gave thirty days time to file such application while the petitioner filed the petition. Filed seventeen days after departure. Notwithstanding the delay with the petition for condolences, such a request for the restoration of the suit was not significant at the hearing date on which the case was dismissed for non-prosecution and given by the Reader of Court and the presiding officer. No, such date cannot be considered as the date of the hearing during the validity of the ban period in the O IX, R 8, CPC jurisdiction. Thus the application for restoration of the case was to be applied in the light of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provided for a period of three years for filing the application and not seventeen days from the removal of Article 163 of the Act. After the suit filed for retrial, the suit was, therefore, well within time unless otherwise indicated by the claimants in those petitions. female advocates from Quetta lawyer