The purpose of the Section 115 and O VII, R 11 revision limits, and the dismissal of the plaintiff by the trial court, was dismissed by the lower appellate court, and the plaintiff delayed 67 days with a civil view. The second was preferred, the purpose of the effect and the purpose of enforcing the statute of limitations. Any kind of legal action doubles: Closing the doors of litigation on the aggrieved party after reaching the first stage of the dispute, though it was anxious and the court was never taken for that decision. Secondly, for the final approval of the proper jurisdiction decision of the court, the period to be challenged before a superior legal forum was not such that the court whose decision was finalized was the least. Grade was the finality by which it was approved. The law of limitation of a dispute or court judgment, regardless of whether the aggrieved party was otherwise able to show that it has a legitimate case of merits, was the whole idea behind the enforcement of the limitation law. That litigation does not matter. Due to the application of the limitation, the party can be of no avail that the litigation first successfully crosses the barrier and only after that, the court has examined the merits of the matter. Should the issue of such limitation be ignored, then the amount for disregarding the purpose for which the statute of limitations was enforced, even if the order to reject the claimant was lawful on merit. It is not unclean or out of order
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
