Find a Lawyer

GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P., THROUGH SECRETARY W & S DEPARTMENT N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN

Sections 12 (2) and 115 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Sections 3, 5, 12 and 29 of the Land Acquisition Act (of 1894), Section 18 were challenged in which the application for fraud and misrepresentation was challenged. Was challenged, which was referenced by the referee court. Under section 12 (2), the CPC Seedd application was dismissed by the referee court. The petitioners filed a review against the disqualification order, which is over the 90-day deadline for the decision. Applicants applied for the certified copy of the unclean order only two days after the approval of the unknown order and the required copy was provided to the applicants after three months and ten days. But about three months after the receipt of the certified copy, a revision was filed against the unclean order, which was to be removed with the clarification of the provisions of the First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908, The deadline was not provided to file a review. Under section 115, CPC, it can be safely concluded that section 115, counting the 90-day period for filing a revision application in the CPC, Sections 4, 9 to 18 and An application for review of the provisions contained in section 20 of the Demarcation Act, 1908, may be resorted to. After filing for more than 90 days as provided in section 115, the CPC dismissed the judgment / order dated the execution of section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the High Court will have no choice, But exclude the revision request with the time limit allowed under Section 12 (2), the CPC will not be available to the applicant, and in his case the High Court law websites from Kohat lawyer