COL. (RETD.) AYUB ALI RANA versus DR. CARLITE S. PUNE
Limitation Act 1908 Section 5 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 115 and O. VIII, R10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), without jurisdiction revocation order Defendant Defendant Defendant's defamation order Counsel was closed on his failure to file a written statement, hearing was adjourned and the plaintiff's argument was that the High Court had apologized for the delay in error. In this case, counsel for wrongdoing, Delays were not considered sufficient for condolences, but in each case in the High Court, this matter was taken into account in the specific circumstances of the matter. On receipt of the question about the extent to which the question was raised, the application for review of the present case was seized and it was exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC, under which the affected person received the request for review. The right to file was also given, the High Court itself was given the authority to demand a record of any matter. Whether any order itself was valid and there was no illegality or illegality of the jurisdiction was bad, such aspect of the matter was also taken into account in the present case. What the trial court ordered. It was permissible to close the defendant's defense and to what extent was the illicit connection with it, when the High Court concluded that the facts and circumstances of the case, the conditions laid down by the relevant law for the application of the penal provisions VII. , R10, CPC was not completed and the order passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction. The High Court
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
