Find a Lawyer

DR. MUHAMMAD SHAHID MIAN versus FAIZ-UR-REHMAN FAIZI

O IX, R 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 Requests for the Separation of the Existing Part Decree and Delayed Delays There are sufficient reasons when two simultaneous remedies against the ex parte decree are available and for a party. Open, and deliberately, deliberately and ultimately abandoning each other is benefited, followed by the matter simply because there is no desired result in taking advantage of such qualities. The delay in air time cannot be considered as a reason for condolences. Orders, such as Appeal Order IX, Rule 13, cannot be waived under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for the separation of the former party decree during the proceedings because it does not constitute sufficient cause in the jurisdiction. Of the section

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• GUL MUHAMMAD v. State 2011 SCMR 670
• Syed MAZHAR HAIDER KAZMI v. SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE 2011 PLC(CS) 671
• SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION through Secretary v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad 2011 PLD 671
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islama v. Dr. MUBASHIR HASSAN 2011 PLD 674
• RAJA KHAN v. MANAGER (OPERATION) FAISALABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (WAPDA) 2011 SCMR 676
• JUSTICE HASNAT AHMED KHAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN/STATE 2011 PLD 680
• REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE v. Malik RIAZ AHMAD KHOKHAR 2011 PLC(CS) 681
• GHULAM SHABBIR AHMED v. State 2011 SCMR 683

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

best advocate from Sanghar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes