RAFIQUE USMAN versus AXACT CYBER SOLUTIONS THROUGH PROPRIETOR
Sections 42 and 54 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 12 of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 100 Second Appeal Against the Scrutiny of the Evidence, Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Counterclaim The judgment was taken in favor of the plaintiff, which was taken by the plaintiff. This appeal was constrained by the limitation, while defendant's position was that there was no reasonable agreement between the parties that when the validity of the 2005 branch fee was assessed by the copying branch itself, the defendant There was no need to submit a court fee stamp before the fee was assessed. If there is a difference between the date of the fee and the date of submission by copying the branch, the time between the estimate and the deposit will not be taken into account, the appeal was filed at the appropriate time. , Because the defendant was entitled to be excluded from the date on which the certified copy was filed and when the copy was supplied, there was a question regarding the applicability of the existence of a valid agreement between the parties. The two courts appreciated the evidence at this point and, hearing the appeal under Section 100, CPC, the High Court upheld the suit. The order was pronounced, restoring the evidence and refusing to take another view.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
