Section 5 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OX, R13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 164 and 181 Pre-Impression Suits Ex parte decree, delay jurisdiction aside, service was not postponed. After the trial, there was no option but to stand trial, except that the evidence of his previous evidence was presented by the plaintiff and his previous injunction was presented and the defendant gave reasons without delay. And moved the application for separation of the former party decree without disclosing the source of information about it. The action, however, was accepted by the defendant's request for payment of Rs 2,500 and the defendant joined the proceedings and filed the written statement but again appeared before the court and the previous order was passed against the defendant. Aliya was rejected. The Courts below stated that because of its conduct and limitation of misconduct, the application for separation of the preceding party decree was inserted not under Article but under Article. E181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and withheld over time The application did not show any plausible reasons or good reason which was not verified by a piece of evidence and the delay of each day was in accordance with law. Had to explain The said petition was submitted delayed, which was banned on 53/44 days. Defendants' behavior restrained him from speaking softly about the court as he did not appear again on the first occasion despite the service. And absent himself from court was dealt with according to law by the courts below.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
