A IX, R 13 and Section 115 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 164 and 181 Former Decree, the limitation suit filed by the defendants was decided separately but presented in the interest of the defendants. On appeal, the decree filed two years later, the lower appellate court applied the terms of the rule of Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 to only one of the previous decisions and orders, where the defendant was never involved in the proceedings. In cases where the defendant did not appear after joining the proceedings, Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was applied by the respondent. Remember joined the legal services of a lawyer who was presented by the prosecution, but later he said failed to present evidence that the 1908 Act under Article 164. After applying the preceding judgment and the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, valuable rights were accumulated in their favor and they could not be deprived. Unless the day-to-day delay was specified by the defendants, the request for a determination of the preceding party decree submitted by the defendants was forbidden and for no good reason. In view of the earlier decision and the order was passed in favor of the plaintiffs, the High Court had passed the order. A review petition filed by the lower appellate court and the defendants was granted in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
