A IX, R 13, OXXIX, Rr 1, 2 and Section 115 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 5, approving the interim injunction and approving the delay, requesting a review by the applicant The decision was made. The High Court proceeded against the defendants in the former parties in which the defendants filed four petitions, one for deciding the former party's decree, the other for bringing the legal legacy of the late defendant on record. The suspension of the operation of an unreasonable decision for delay and the fourth interim injunction passed against the respondent when he died more than a year before the legal legacy of the deceased defendant. Was also abroad and records show that no notice was offered after defendant's death Same. As the legal legacy of the deceased dies when a person dies to inform the reviewer of the incident in the High Court, it is clear that his record of termination has expired. It has been made clear that the review filed against the sole respondents. Was made and there was no other respondent who could have informed the defendant's legal heritage as to the review, the affected decision in the view of the law against the deceased, the individual, was not lasting, especially when the lawyer's decision was delayed. The defendant's conviction for pleading had already ended, making it a reasonable time to ask for a delayed apology. The reason was, the previous order was submitted and the applicant was instructed to submit a revised memorandum of the parties within two weeks of the central review request and thereafter
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
