For the damages of Arts 23 and Section 3, the plaintiff sought damages from the plaintiff against the plaintiff, which was subsequently dismissed. And it was his duty. To determine the question of limitation in the first court, however, the verdict appeal filed by the respondent in the case filed by the defendant was not decided on 23-26 2006, when the defendant went through The lawsuit was decided for. 12 The restriction of filing a case for dismissal on 2008 will begin on the date of the decision of the appeal and was the same year in which the plaintiff was sued under Article 23 of the First Schedule of Limitation Act, 1908, Section of the Limitation Act 1908. 3 has been barred from saying that even if the limitation is not established as a defense duty of the court, the time restriction case will be dismissed. For example, if there is a deadline before setting up a case, prioritizing an appeal, or applying, then the fact is that the limitation request was not raised in the written statement, nor was such a case It was not enough to overlook the important aspect, nor to delay it. Courts admit of multiple material irregularities and judicial review due to gross abortion
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
