Section 5 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OX, R 13 and Section 115 Delay for Petition The application for the separation of the preceding injunction was filed with the defendant for possession. The same application was also made under section 5 under the said application. The Limitation Act, 1908, was also filed. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected the request for separation of the former party decree. Defendant's argument was that he was not heard and that the decisions made under it were and were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The undisputed valid record reveals that the defendant filed a delayed plea for the cause, that the application to set aside the previous judgment and injunction was out of bounds but below the defendant's The courts did not resolve it. On the question of limitations, section 5 of the Inappropriate Limitation Act 1908 should not be condemned to any body, and the court should decide on competence rather than dismiss it on merits. While the courts have failed to exercise their jurisdiction over the law, the High Court accepted the review request and was set aside. The following decisions and orders passed by the courts and the case were remanded to re-judge the same decision in which the application for review of the application was granted under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
