Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HABIB versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

Original Appeal Code of the CPC Appeal Order XLI Original Decisions OXLI, R1 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Reasonable Claimant's Appeal Exempt at Appeals 5 and 12 Appeal was dismissed on 28 9 1996, He applied for copies of the verdict and, on receipt of decree sheets and copies on 5 5 1997, filed an appeal on the plaintiff's appeal in 8 1997, knowing that the case was 289 1996. Was excluded, it also learned that the decree was not made. For which he applied on 5 5 1997 and filed the appeal on 8 1997 1997 on obtaining copies, therefore, obtaining copies will only be available to the claimant for extension of time and as filed on 8 1997 1997. At the time of this appeal, the plaintiff has not made any offer. On the explanation of why he did not even apply for a copy of the decision dated 289 1996, a copy of the memorandum of appeal filed before the Appellate Court shows that this decision and order were challenged. That is, 7 5 1 was approved. 7 99 Thus, in view of the apparent negligence by the appellant plaintiff, certified copies of the decision and order of the integrated case were obtained on 28 9 1996 and timely appeals were filed, therefore, it was unclear. He seemed to have no knowledge of approving the decree. And the decision in the case is only in cases where the decree was not prepared by the court and the parties were not mistaken, they will be entitled to extension in the period and this position can only be retained if the decision is authenticated. Apply for a copy, at least if timely judgment and order were appealed against, filed on time online advocate from Jehanian lawyer