Find a Lawyer

CAPTAIN UMER BOKHARI versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE

Appellant / Decision Appeal Denied Memorandum's Appeal for Not Receiving Fees Fee Appealing Against Family Family Court Act 1964, Appeal Against Trial Family Court Decision For Recovery Of Articles 5, Schedule And 14 Dowry Articles Received court fee of Rs 15. The appellate court directed the appellant to associate the ad-hoc court fee on the memorandum, but the appellant's time was given to associate the required court fee, but he instead appealed the appellate court fee. The court filed an application for review, which was dismissed and the appeal notice was also rejected for non-compliance with the required court fees. Appellant had requested that he be posted as a soldier at the relevant time on the border and that his lawyer could not contact him. And for this reason, he could not even consider the court fees required within the extension period. Appellant was also responsible for getting in touch with the lawyer who filed the appeal and it cannot be believed that the appellant, When he was not posted at the border, he never contacted his lawyer for about two months after requesting an extension. Submitting the required court fee and rejecting the appellant's memorandum of appeal even though he was a soldier, he would not be entitled to any special privileges other than the Appellant of the Soldiers' Litigation Act, 1925, which would also reduce the court fee for an extended period. Didn't have Nor did he show any reason for doing so, but his appeal was justified due to non-payment of required court fees. registration advocate from Naukundi lawyer