Find a Lawyer

AMANULLAH SOOMRO versus P.I.A. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN

Article 185 (3) of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 Appeal for leave was morally simple but on the contrary it was not permissible to deprive the legal party of the legal right because the negligence of the applicant or the lawyer. Due to it being retained, the right to recover the amount of wrongful loss caused by negligence was available to the applicants, who themselves applied to the law firm. Illegal abuse by the courts will only exacerbate such problems. The Supreme Court noted with concern that the collectives of the bar need to take seriously such matters in order to restore public confidence in the Nobel profession, nor was there any serious question of law involved. Was a result of Article strayed for demanding Supreme Court intervention: refusal to appeal 185 (3) of constitutional leave

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• BASHIR AHMAD v. INCHARGE (FEMALE) DARULAMAN, DISTRICT MIANWALI 2011 SCMR 1329
• REHMATULLAH v. State 2011 SCMR 1332
• MUHAMMAD ADIL LATIF v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT through Secretary 2011 SCMR 1334
• QAMAR ABBAS v. State 2011 SCMR 1335
• Mrs. REHMAT JEHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary 2011 SCMR 1344
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS v. ALLIED BANK LIMITED 2011 SCMR 1347
• SALEEM v. State 2011 SCMR 1349
• Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ v. State 2011 SCMR 1350

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

best advocate from Pindi bhohri lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes