Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR

Seventh Twelfth, R 3 (1) (ii) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), two separate petitions for leave of appeal by the petitioning party for leave for section 42 appeal were filed by both parties. The plaintiff failed to file a copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by the defendant, the initial objection was raised by the defendant that the plaintiff did not refuse his application, leaving the appeal on the certified copy of the memorandum filed in the High Court. Granted, his appeal was liable on the basis that dismissal of the law was no excuse for ignorance even though the plaintiff did not, in addition to his supplemental statement, Urndm also presented a copy of the appeal was filed, but without the permission of the court and presented copy without any delay period. The error of the law, by either party, cannot be waived especially where there has been a negligence in delaying the delay without sufficient reason to delay you each day by requesting an oath to assist. That no application was moved or no affidavit was filed by the plaintiff who had not properly filed leave for appeal, was dismissed. law websites from Wah Cantt lawyer