Find a Lawyer

AHMAD JAMIL QURESHI versus CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD.

After removing the objections from such appeal by the Section 5 Appellate Office, the said Appellant was given a date for the delay in filing the Appellant's resubmittal appeal through the Office but the ground in the application was grounded. Has not been reset. It was not enough to apologize for the delayed contempt of the case. An affidavit was not supported by the affidavit. The law would be in favor of the watchman, but the offender is not obliged to present the appeal to the appellant. Submit the appeal again after the objections have been removed within the time set by. Failure to reproduce within the stipulated time was to be excluded. There was no case of delay by the appellant, why was the delay in the delay of the re-submission of the appellant after nine months. Dismiss in the circumstances

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• RIZWAN SHAH v. Mst. KALSOOM 2015 MLD 324
• HASSAN ALI v. BAKHT SAWAB 2015 PCrLJ 332
• TARIQ JAMIL BANGASH v. ATTAULLAH KHAN KHATTAK 2015 MLD 343
• SPINZER TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. v. PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION 2015 YLR 344
• KHITAB GUL v. MUHAMMAD AMIR 2015 YLR 364
• AYUB v. MUNSIF 2015 PCrLJ 369
• Syed ZAHIR SHAH v. NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU 2015 YLR 371
• UMAR DAD v. MUHAMMAD WAHID 2015 MLD 373

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

top advocates from Leepa lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes