The trial court dismissed the case under Article 142 law in evidence (10 of 1984), Article 115 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 questioning. Appeal Court, applying Article 142, Limitation Act, 1908, termed the case above the prescribed time and reversed the trial reversal. The appellate court erred in the absence of allegations of enforcement of Article 142, Limitation Act, 1908. Plaintiff, seizing possession in Article 142, Limitation Act, 1908, when the facts of ownership of the defendants and defendants as tenants under them were proved on record and when such fact was admitted by the appellate court. There was no justification for leaving. The appellate court did not take proper view of the relevant law applicable to the facts of the appellate court's decision of the appellate court in order to hold this case ahead of time under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. This was not a sustainable decision.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
