Sections 100, 101 and 103 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 151, 153 and 156 Second Appellate scope were limited to the second appeal and the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the second appeal on grounds of misunderstanding of facts. was not. Will lie on the basis of law or due to a procedural error that affected the factual decision. In fact, the allegations found on a question are misconstrued in the law only if no evidence is supported or an irrational and perverse decision is made. The credibility of the witnesses was neither law error nor procedural error would not justify interference in the second appeal unless false statements or evidence were read and the High Court was not obliged to consider the matter. If it is not set or incorrectly determined. Due to any illegal, wrongdoing, error or defect, the courts below have the authority to examine the authenticity of the conclusions extracted from the evidence and the question in the second appeal. The lower appellate court was not listed on the evidence scrutiny, even though such conclusions cannot be proved to be false unless such error involves the error of law and procedural error in the evaluation of the evidence. ? High Court justifies interference is considered to be a mistake of law. If the lower appellate court had entered evidence based on the evidence, the High Court could not confirm such evidence. The limit for filing an appeal in the High Court was 90 days. Except in the cases under trial. 151 and 153 of the Limitation Act, 1908, in which the High Court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
