Article 42 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 11, 107 (2), O VII, R 11 & O XXXIX, Rr 1, 2 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 2020 for declaration on this basis That he has altered and charged. The order to dismiss the deputy district officer's (Revenue) request for revocation was illegal and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff also filed an advertisement under AXX, RR 1 and 2, CPC. Defendants filed suit for interim injunction and also filed an application under O. VII, R 11, CPC trial court dismissed the petitioners for approval of the ad interim order, pending appeal. , Instead of deciding the matter, emphasized the plaintiff's dismissal claim. That is, the appellate court dismissed the case when earlier the case was merely an appeal for approval of the interim order, CPC provided that the appellate court should have the same powers and demonstrate almost as well. Should. It may have been those duties which were granted by the CPC as the original jurisdiction in relation to the cases it had set up, and they were assigned to the trial court's powers, which were CPG's Section 11 Appellate Court. The orders were also fully implemented in the present case. The limitation question below was also ignored as the plaintiffs challenged the change in the date of 3 12 1995 in the case filed on 21 1 1 2008, which was banned under the ban which the High Court dismissed. Had done
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
