WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN WAPDA versus BHAJAN DAS TEJWANI
Sections 5 and 29 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Delay in Demand for Demand for Section 115 Revision Applying Section 5 of the Law Act 1908, by jurisdiction over automotive review, after request for scope revision Was also banned for one month. Except for the time used to obtain copies of the judgment and decree, defendants were to defend that the lack of funds for delay in filing a review request / delay in the delivery of judicial feespayers was due to equity. And the equity will help to be vigilant, not the guilty person who was negligent in filing an appeal and failed to pursue his case with a proper case. Was not entitled or any of its departments could not be treated differently from a common lawsuit. Attachment party can not be punished. If, for the negligence of the Government or the Department, the period of operation of the Constitution is not prescribed, the proceedings commenced thereunder shall be applied under the Limitation Act, 1908, but where proceedings under the Act commenced. Was set a limitation period, but Section 5 of the Act could not be taken advantage of when it was applied in accordance with Article 29. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, did not apply to the amendment petition under section 29 (2) under the Act which had a 90-day period of limitation. Was banned for a month, not illegal or materially illegal. Ensure compliance with the law
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
