A. XLVII, R1 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 4 and Article 23 suit for harmful prosecution, dismissed by plaintiff for recovery of damages for legal proceedings in the absence of scope suit. , When the ban presented by the claimant was withheld. Did the last day of the limitation fall during the summer holidays and he filed a lawsuit on the first day to reopen the court, therefore, the claim presented by the defendant was within the limits when the right to appeal was available? So legitimate was not intact. Appeal for refusal of review was not grounds Grounds that can be reviewed can be listed in OXLVII, R1, CP for any errors or omissions corrected on the record face. C. A review can be filed. Such an error or mistake may be one of law, which can be established without argument, the error should also have a substantial impact on the error of the case and the appearance of the error in the face of record f. Running a party could be corrected or you didn't choose to be sluggish during the holidays and that did not mean limitation. Section 4 of the 1908 Act was always beneficial provision was deleted in nature. And the plaintiff cannot be ineligible. The High Court withdrew its decision and order and restored the case to its original status.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
