QAISAR MUSHTAQ AHMAD versus CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
Article 185 (2) (d) (E) Rules of the Supreme Court, 1980, OV, R24 (14) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 Direct appeal delays the suspension, substantially appealing in its cause Not to mention the defendant, the value of the case was stated to be Rs 30 lakh and the decision of the amount of money was passed by the trial court in their favor and the trial court's decision was rejected, before the High Court. The appellant filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court and then the direct appeal filed by the appellant asked for delay in filing the first application for leave to appeal. ? The proper course of action available to the appellant is to file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 185 (2) (d) (E) of the Constitution. And he also allowed appellant to impose a time restriction on his appeal for unknown reasons within the prescribed time limit, thus applying for leave to appeal, which changed his The request for was specifically rejected and the same dispute would not be considered grounds for contempt of delay The petition for delay was not mentioned for any good reason which was ridiculous and ambiguous. No explanation was given as to why the appellant waited until 2005 6 2005, to file an appeal after the order? 95 2005, which was approved by the Supreme Court, which did not allow exchange of leave application for appeal, the appeal was not instituted immediately and promptly and every one was delayed. The Supreme Court had refused to delay the 142 days. By the High Court
