AXVII, RR 2, 5 and O IX, R 9 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 168 and 181 Application for restitution of a case dismissed for illegal prosecution. Such appeal was rejected by the trial court and the Court of Appeal. Has excluded when it was more than 30 filed. In the absence of the presiding officer of the court, the day fixed under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the reader had fixed the postponement date for the hearing without issuing a signature slip. Thus, the court itself could have dismissed the case on that date. Order was not set The clause and Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply. After that, the hearing of the proper words in Oli XVII, R2, CPC will be adjourned; the matter of adjournment was adjourned by the court reader when the court. In the absence of the presiding officer of the case, the case was adjourned without reference to such a signed slip. In terms of O XVII, R 5, CPC, such adjournment date O XVII, R 2 did not have a hearing date, the CPC trial court for hearing on the postponement date set by its reader. Can set another date. T was passed, ignoring the mandatory supply of XVII, R 5, CPC, therefore, it was an anomaly and Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 would apply, whereby the High Court set aside the unclean order and in the circumstances. Case restored.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
