Find a Lawyer

MST. REHANA BEGUM versus KARAM HUSSAIN

AX, Rr 6, 13, O XVIII, R 2 and Section 115 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Decree of Arts 164 and 181 ex parte decrees, under facts under the jurisdiction of the High Court under 5 115 Keeping the final results aside. , CPC Scope Applying for Separation of Ex-Partition Decree More than 30 Days The former party's decision and decree, IX, R 6 (1), was not approved at the first hearing within the meaning of CPC, Because the defendant has already filed his. On his written statement as to the service of the summons, the trial court, after issuing notice of the petition under O. VIII, R 5 and O XII, R 6 CPC, heard the case, which was good, but then Because of the trial case, the trial court twice dismissed the defendant's plea to set aside the former party decree and the order was upheld by the provisions of the Lower Appellate Court endorsement of Article 181 and not the Article 1908 of the Act. At 164, this applied. In the case, an application for separation of such former party decree may be filed within three years of the date on which the right to submit the deposited application shall be filed within four years from the date of the determination of the ex parte decree established by the defendant. Within months the right to set was right. Over time, the trial court, as well as the appellate court's doctrine that was timely imposed, was a breach of the settled law, and because of the misapplication of the law by the courts below both courts, the defendant Was deprived of his valuable rights. Committed an illegality in dismissing the defendant's plea which resulted in the abortion of justice despite the law power of attorney advocate Kot Ghulam Mohd lawyer