MISAL KHAN versus MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE MEMBER, KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE
The claimant's limitation withdrawal delay suit for the receipt of sections S&14 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OVII, Rr 2 and 10 suits was returned by jurisdiction by the civil court. The plaintiff filed the same in the Judge Banking Court court, which was again returned to the question of jurisdiction stating that the banking court had no jurisdiction, because the bankruptcy case was once again the banking The lawsuit was filed in the civil court in compliance with the court's order, which was declared by the court to be invalid and the plaintiff, acting in good faith, complying with the decision of the courts / civil and banking court. The decision of the courts regarding the return of the said plaintiff, delayed in due time, in this case, the case is denied to the plaintiff. Ob may be, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Act, was entitled condolences to late 1908 under Section 14, the plaintiff's legal rights, which can not be denied, Rolling Stone May 2003. As regards the plaintiff's question that the plaintiff, who was merely knocked out on technical matters, acted in good faith and followed his case with reasonable cause, the plaintiff could not be denied that section 148 of the Limitation Act of 1908 The advantage was to protect the litigation against the ban of this section, which was pursuing its case with all earnestness and good faith, but it failed to make good decisions on the basis of defects in the jurisdiction of the case. had lived. Court decisions / court orders were set aside and the law was remanded to a court of civil civil judge, Qan
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
