A. XLI, R 19 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 168 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Non-prosecution appeal dismissed The appeal of the High Court on the date the matter was adjourned, The court had clearly ordered that no further adjournments be granted on the next date of hearing. And that if for some reason the counsel for the appellant was not in a position to prosecute the matter, the appellants should arrange an alternative. At the postponement date of the hearing, counsel for the appellant did not appear, nor was there any alternative arrangement by the appellant. has been. Following the order of the court, the petition was reversed, which was not accepted by the court, and the lawyer, who had a brief lawyer to provide actual counsel for the appellant, being his partner, to argue the matter. Was asked for, but he was unable to do so. Move the case forward and the appeal for non-prosecution was dismissed, especially given the previous history of dismissal for illegal prosecution and restitution, appellant and lawyer's conduct apparently left no room in the courtroom, but the article Except for the date of dismissal and the date of knowledge that was filed within thirty days from the limitation Act, 1908, for the removal of the appeal of the illegal prosecution under 178, the appeal for restitution of the appeal, the dismissal for the non-prosecution. In the case, the appellant's lawyer admitted that he would appeal the illegal prosecution at a later date. I know the appeal, filed an application without delay any request for explanation of the delay. Applicants' Behavior and Their Advice
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
