Find a Lawyer

HONDA ATLAS CARS (PAKISTAN) LTD versus HONDA SARHAD (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS

AIX, Rr 9 and 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Sections 5, Arts 163 and 164 Former Decree, application for contempt of court pending dismissal for illegal prosecution The decision against the two cases was pending. The defendants, one filed against them and the other filed by them, the respondents did not appear on 13 2000, the trial court dismissed the case against the defendants despite repeated pleas. After the hearing, another trial was heard in the trial court. Former Proof In the case filed against the respondents on 22 par 2000, the ex parte decree was passed, the respondents filed a petition for setting up the ex parte order on 20, 2000, and the petition for reinstatement of their suit 8 1 In 2001, both petitions were set aside by the trial court, but the High Court allowed the appellants in favor of the respondents in exercise of their jurisdiction over the appeal. A similar complaint was filed more than thirty days ago and no request for condolences was filed by the respondents. Both applications were out of bounds, i.e. 30 days under Arts 163 and 164 of the Limitation Act 1908, therefore, it was the responsibility of the respondents to avail themselves of Section 5 of the Limitation Response Act, 1908, that the respondents were regularly served. Given that they were fully aware of the trial, they should refer the trial court within 30 days in view of the provisions of Arts 163. And if there was a delay in filing the petition in 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the respondents should consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. solicitors from Wan Radha Ram lawyer