Sections 5 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), delaying the first appeal of section 96 regularly, raised the question of the prejudice of the initial object to be barred by the statute of limitations on maintaining the appeal. The claimant of the appellant who filed an appeal on the wrong advice of his lawyer in an invalid forum with legal jurisdiction was not entitled to claim the delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Because the counsel for the delayed apology did not have the wrong advice, the invalid counsel was valid. The initial and foremost duty of the court office was to look and check whether the appeal was within the time frame set by law. And then it is the court's duty to look at it and determine whether the appellate has jurisdiction to entertain it or if the office reported the appeal to be filed as a competent hearing. , And the court also issued notices to defendants after the hearing. Likewise, then the appellant and his counsel cannot be held liable and the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of delayed concession. Otherwise, no one can be prejudiced by the act of the court, other than the negligence and careless behavior of the office and the court thereafter. Announces filing within the stipulated period
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
