Section 66C Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 28 and Article 144 General Clause Act (X of 1897), Section 6 (C) of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), section 42 suit declared unlawful occupation To do this, the trial court dismissed, but the appellate court below issued the same ruling (under which the judgment of 279 2002 was granted) and the High Court upheld the appellate court's decision. The defendants' assertion of litigation was that the Appellate Court below had passed an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs when the provisions of section 28 and Article 144 of the Act, 1908, had already been amended / deleted. Since no law existed, this decree could not be approved on the basis of negative possession. The legal process would work prejudicially, even if such a law was not specifically considered so the limitation method The car was a law. And it will work with disappointment. It also had an exception that, if the right held in a party was stripped or abrogated by amendment, the process of law would not be background that would have resulted in the possible deletion of Article 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 Will not be affected. The suit filed in the court will continue to operate under the law that was present at the time of filing the case.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
