Find a Lawyer

IQBAL HUSSAIN versus QAIMKHANI WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH PRESIDENT

Section 8 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 104, O VII, R11 and O XLIII, R1 (4) of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 15 and Article 142 of the suit for occupation and profit The court rejected the charges on the grounds of limitation, limiting the plaintiff's appeal trial, and hearing the case, pursuant to Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, after more than 14 years. The appeal was to be filed within a year, after which the appellate court was stopped, the order was set aside and the remand was obtained. The appellate court in the case has observed that the case was timely because the defendant could not file the case in time because the property was filed by the appellant earlier. The appellant had earlier filed a lawsuit in relation to the suit property and started proceedings against the defendant. But the High Court was defeated, but the Appellant's enjoyment of the Prohibition Order while it was enforced is due to the continuous subjugation of the same property between the same party, along with the restraining order. Although there is no restriction in the filing of the decree because the order was not restricted to the legal proceedings, section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, had to be removed. It has been shown that the right of property to a person cannot be exercised on a technical basis was not particularly applicable in the case of the respondents on section 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 as there was no turning point in the calculation of time. Neither the defendant was excluded nor has he ever been in the appellate court, in the circumstances of the previous contest between the same parties for a judgment of merit. online advocate from Kahuta lawyer