Find a Lawyer

ZEENAT versus WAPDA

Delay in Appeals Delaying Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 The decision of the delay in filing an appeal in the wrong court was sufficiently returned to the appellant by the Additional District Judge for submission to the Touchstone Memo of the Appeal for submission to the High Court. This case costs a lot. , In which the unwanted injunction orders of the claimant's return were passed, the 2, 00, 00 \ Appeals filed before the High Court under Sections 5 and 14, the Limitation Act, 1908, the Appellant carefully and Worked with caution. Practices were not neglected due to the wrong advice of his lawyer. Appeals were filed in the wrong court if his lawyer was alert and careful, avoiding wrongdoing. Appellants were lodged in wrong court. Nothing is gained, but they decide their case. Further delay was granted by the trial court on 1-5 1999 and the appeals were filed before the District Judge on 31 5 1999, two months for the appellants to file an appeal in the High Court was still available, Therefore, the delay in filing the waiver appeals by the District Judge for timely action was the foremost reason. Before the High Court appeals are pending. For about 8 months, if the Additional District Judge used his court mind to record before him and returned the appeals memorandum to the appellants without delay, he could have easily reached the High Court in the limitation period. Appeals could be filed On 11 April 2000 the appeals were returned. He was presented to the High Court at the time of filing an appeal on 14 2 2000 - 3 days - before the High Court. property advocate from Chak 4 b c lawyer