Section 5 and Article 168 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), A XLIII, R 3 Financial Institutions (Restoration of Finance) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Section 22 Maxim: No one can avail. The applicants' appeal for their own false appeal (restoration of financial support) ordinance 2001 delay ban under Section 22 of the financial institutions was dismissed for non-prosecution. The reason for his absence was not to receive the cause list and that the applicant was a heart patient who was undergoing treatment and therefore did not know the date of his hearing. Article 1868 of the Limitation Act Accordingly, the period of 1908 began with the date of dismissal, not from the date of knowledge. Appeal for dismissal of appeal and hearing of appeal for a period of thirty days was provided for disqualification of the prosecutor, while the applicant filed the appeal after six months. The grounds for non-listing of the cause hardly constitute a good reason why the list was not only provided to the bar but was also displayed on the website of the High Court, the High Court said. The caretaker's negligence on obtaining a caseload and bar list for consultation via email and SMS or checking a website email or SMS was not remiss, on the basis of which no person was profitable. Can't lift The request for its own error) was rejected in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
