Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision No. 669 of 19.80, decided of I 5th November, 1980.
‑‑‑ Arts. 163 & 181‑Residuary Article, applicability, of‑‑ Respondents' application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act (X of 1940) dismissed in default‑‑Application for restoration of application also dismissed for non‑prosecutions‑-Subsequently another restoration application filed and such application accepted Period of 30 days prescribed by Art. 163‑Refers to case of getting set aside order of dismissal for default of appearance and envisages restoration of suit dismissed in default at plaintiff's instance but does not cover restoration of application dismissed in default seeking restoration of suit dismissed for non‑prosecution Residuary Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, held, applicable to case and not Art. 163.
Ahmad Ali v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies P L D 1971 Kar. 182 rel.
‑‑‑ S. 115‑‑Revision ‑‑Interference in‑Conclusion reached by Civil Judge, not arbitrary or fanciful‑‑Another inference possible from evidence on record ‑Held, interference with impugned order not justifiable on such score alone.
N. S. venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras P L D 1949 P C 26 and Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another P L D 1970 S C 139 ref.
Maqsood Hussain for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th November, 1980.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer