Section 5 and Article 164 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O IX, R 13 Delays in Delaying Request for Separation of Ex-Parte Decree The major drawback by the Defending Party was that the Respondent's effect was that its counsel Due to the misrepresentation of this case by , She could not timely file an application which, under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, was obliged to present a plausible explanation, giving good reason to refer the court to the Wallati party seeking condolences. There was a need to investigate the issues, which led to their condolences. Delay and its decision cannot be summed up unless it is shown that there are sufficient reasons for the delay when the effect of extinguishing the right of a party is diminished when major defects are eliminated. Occurred and when no cause was shown by the opposing party to cause such defects, delays or timely restrictions by the default party, the defendants were entitled to the rights which they had received in such cases, In the present case, he shifted all the burden on his lawyer and the record showed that the lawyer was involved in all proceedings, and that if he made mistakes in his professional conduct, the defendant would go directly to the matter. Could raise. For this the lawyer's negligence does not constitute a sufficient excuse for the delay and the party taking advantage of the Section 5 Limitation Act, 1908, has to convince the court that it was not negligent and proceeded with the delay and care. Was following a request for condolences. Dismissed, under the circumstances
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
