Find a Lawyer

SYED MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR SHAMSHAD versus MUKHTIARKAR SALEHPAT

Article 5 The decision to delay the timely appeal was in principle the plaintiff's claim that he was under treatment and therefore could not file an appeal within time Imp 12 Dec 2008 The impugned judgment and order was passed and the appeal 27 The 52-day, which was filed in 2009, did not reveal the time restriction certificate that the plaintiff was unable to transfer or speak to his lawyer's direction in order to prioritize the appeal. The person wishing should explain the delay of each day to the satisfaction of the court and also prove what was caused by it. When the delay in filing the appeal was due to the negligence and negligence of the plaintiff for reasons beyond his control, then he was not entitled to the argument by the High Court. The valuable rights were passed to the other party in civil matters from time to time. Were.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUHAMMAD MUBIN v. State 2014 YLR 463
• BILAL INTERNATIONAL v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Chairman 2014 PTD 465
• OWAIS AHMED IDRIS v. Syed MUHAMMAD WAQAR UDDIN 2014 PLD 465
• ZULIFQUAR AHMED v. MAHMOOD ABBAS 2014 PLD 468
• Syed MUJAHID v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Home Department 2014 PLD 472
• SHAHAB MAZHAR BHALLI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment 2014 PLC(CS) 473
• INAYAT SHAH v. State 2014 PCrLJ 473
• IBRAHIM KHAN v. State 2014 MLD 476

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

female advocates from Sakardu lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes