A IX, R 13 and Section 151 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 181 Gilgit-Baltistan (Authorization and Sovereignty Governance) Order, 2009, Article 60 (13) Ex-Orders, keeping the date of limitation in which the preceding section The proceedings of the proceedings were initiated, it was decided that the trial court first had to decide the fate of the plea in order to dispose of the inter-plea application. And then instead of moving forward, the trial court, instead of dealing with the aforementioned plea, ordered the former party to proceed and consequently a pre-emption order was passed against the defendant, who did not have a hearing date, before the parties. The proceedings and all subsequent orders, including the ex parte decree. The result, passed by the trial court, has no effect, can be dismissed and excused. The request for a pre-emptive proceeding filed within a period of 30 days was within time in which a cross-party order was approved on a date. To hear an interlocutory plea; and was not hearing that no limitation would be imposed and that it could be determined by the inherent powers under Section 151; the limitation period according to the CPC Article. 181 will be set by the demarcation act 1908, which will provide a three-year jail term. In the present case of the former party order, the ex parte decree was passed on 23 6 2005 and an appeal was filed on 24 8 2005 against the ex parte decree, there was no time limit filed by the chief justice of the court. The same results were put aside correctly. Any fans
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
