FAZAL KARIM versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN
Section 115 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), dismissing the request for an amendment to Article 199, dismissed the case for filing of a revision application by the plaintiff, the defendants decided in review before the High Court. And denied the trial court's order. Due to a change in the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts, the review was dismissed by the district judge on the failure of the defendants to appear and the petition for revocation of the review was also dismissed, the defendants filed notice of appeal from the district. The judge was never served on the defendants because the processor server reported that the lawyer for the defendants had told the defendants that the case had been withdrawn and his (lawyer) had no direction. And the defendants may be summoned to a personally amended court / district judge. However, no such notice was issued. The defendant's service review court rejected the processor server's report and dismissed the request for review as soon as possible. The law requires that the court decide on eligibility cases, rather than adopting a shortcut method for earned units, rather than removing the revised default. In this, according to the law concerning merit, unless there was a plausible barrier to litigation, due to the negligence of a lawyer or court official, the trial court committed an irregularity in excluding a review petition. That was pending. Instead of rejecting the amendment because there was no prosecution in the last 14 years, it should have been decided on merits, not effective orders.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
