Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES HOUSING SOCIETY versus MESSRS M.A. KHAN & CO.

A. XLI, R1 and Section 151 Arbitration Act (X40 of 1940), Section 39 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 3 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 HC The court presented I was accompanied by photostat copies of certified true copies of unclean verdicts and decrees, on 189 1995. The original certified original copies of the wrong image judgment and decree were not filed at the time of the appeal submission, but no objection was raised to the office at that time. With the memorandum appeal requested under section 151, the CPC requested an exemption from the filing of certified genuine copies of the documents with the appeal, which was allowed by the High Court but is exempt. For the first time, the respondents had taken orally on May 11, 1995, along with a certified correct copy of the objection, as well as the failure to file an appeal memorandum with the memorandum of appeal. In response to such an objection, the certified true copy of the controversial decision and the order of the petitioner were filed by the appellant on 12 1995 without any special court directive. The respondent moved the petition seeking dismissal / dismissal of the appeal for non-submission of authentic copies of the order at the time of submission of the appeal on 22 5 1996. The question to be considered for the court was whether the facts and circumstances. In the present case, when the appeal had been heard before the High Court for almost a decade and before filing the petition filed on 12 1995 1995, the appellant was quick and unprepared for the preparation of the authenticated copy. Showed a defect. The error of any procedure can be determined ask a advocate free from Kohat lawyer