Appeal Court's failure to notify appellants of appellate ban on the delay of Article 96 Limitation Act (IX of 1908, 1908), Constitution Constitution Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Was excluded due to time constraints and the decision was retained. The High Court correctly justified the jurisdiction of the review, rejecting the amendment if the appellant's lawyers, who are presenting on their behalf, were, under the law, on the decision of the case. If I didn't inform them, it wasn't enough. Due to the delay in filing the appeal, valuable rights were blamed on the plaintiffs as the appellants did not file appeals in a timely manner. Appellants did not show "reasonable cause" for not filing the appeal at the appropriate time. The appellants were unsuccessful in defending the case. Therefore, the appellate court properly dismissed the appeal while refusing to interfere with the court's decisions and decrees. Appeal rejected by the High Court as well as the Appellate Court \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
