Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL versus AUQAF DEPARTMENT

The Sections 11 and 7 provided for a separate application, section 5, the Limitation Act, in the first protest of the same case under section 5 and 14 petitions under the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 11, Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. The requirement was not applied to the petition under section 11, Punjab Waqf Property Ordinance, 1979, 1908, however, if the appellant, because of his earlier action to protest the matter before the High Court, section 14, the limitation. Was entitled to the benefit of the Act, 1908. , Which was disqualified and rejected, should have moved a separate application for the expiry of the specified time period in the first period, not only that no such request was moved, but the appellant did not have a significant time. I didn't even try to get out. In order to avail himself of Section 14, Explanation I, the Limitation Act, 1908, his request was required to determine the right time for the body print, which was being used to prosecute the former litigation, but the present case. I, the notification was issued by the department on 31 st 1974, and the constitutional application was made by the appellant on 30 197 1974, which means that before the expiry of thirty days, the institution was also made. Was. The constitutional application, therefore, cannot be excluded during the period during which the constitutional application is pending, when the application was already barred under section 11, Punjab Dedicated Property Ordinance 1979, till then section 14, the demarcation act. Supply, 1908, therefore, had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case property advocates from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer