A VII, R 2 and O IX, R 13 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 Suit for the collection or value of golden jewelry Ex-parte order in favor of the defendant, the defendant Set aside the court of limitation case later. Appealing to set aside this, which was accepted by the trial court and set aside the preceding order, upon filing an appeal against the trial court's order, the appellate court concluded that the defendant had received the former party order. Knew about the name that was passed against it. , But he filed a petition for approving the previous party order, almost months after 15 months, which was not within a period of thirty days, presumed under Article 164 of the Appellate Court of Limitation Act, 1908 Had done, in the circumstances, well. It has also been stated that the ex parte order was strictly adopted in accordance with the law, in which the respondent's petition for review of the appellate court's decision was also banned for two days and after that no The trusted RA son was granted delayed condolences by the appellate court, who thoroughly scanned the record and came to the correct conclusion that no exemption could be taken, as well as timely sanctions. Also verification failed.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
