Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

Section 115 [as amended by the Civil Code of Conduct (Amendment Act (III of 1992))] Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 12 (2) Inappropriate decisions Only time to obtain a copy of the jurisdiction. Upon its removal, by enacting the Limitation Act, 1908 rightly excluded the amendment from section 12 (2) because there was no legislative limitation while the Civil Procedure Code (amendment). Amendment of section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act was not taken by the Act 1992 giving a 90-day limit. 1908, and include the revision of the wording in it. The time spent in obtaining a copy of the unwanted decision should be excluded, while the deadline for filing a revision request should be excluded.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• DADIO v. SOBHARO 2010 SCMR 576
• NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI v. HAFEEZULLAH KHAWAJA 2010 PLC(CS) 579
• ALLAH DAD v. ABDUL GHANI 2010 PLD 580
• THE STATE/ANTI-NARCOTIC through Director-General Petitioner v. RAFIQ AHMAD CHANNA 2010 SCMR 580
• ABDUL KHALID v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2010 SCMR 583
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. LAHORE HIGH COURT through Registrar 2010 PLC(CS) 584
• RAHAT ALI v. State 2010 SCMR 584
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. RAHIB 2010 PLD 585

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

property advocates from Mehmood Kot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes