Section 14 and 18 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Authorization Act (VIII of 1974), Section 44 Writing Application Maintenance Requirements, together with the Order Q Order, are the keys to a portion of this premises. Referring to the parties who were not parties to the delay in the withdrawal proceedings, the Appeal Condition Scope High Court did not, in its constitutional jurisdiction, sit in the Appellate Court against the orders passed by the Special Tribunal Petitioner so approved by the Tribunal or Authority. The order has to be approved. Except for jurisdiction that was illegal or the evidence was misread, the order passed by the rent controller was not related to the resolution of the property belonging to the premises, but the keys to such part of the building were handed over to the claimant's parties. There were. The rent controller, who owns the equity shares, correctly observed that the closure of the premises for an indefinite period would damage the prop. The appellate authority may challenge the final controller's order and the claimant's order to hand over the keys was mutual order, the appellate authority's disclosure was not in accordance with the law and the appellate authority accepted the delay in accordance with the law. Did not The petitioner cannot be questioned in favor of the applicant and on such result when the limitation was fixed by a particular law then it was not denied under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. It could have been that the order in which the writ petition was challenged was a necessary party and without it the implementation of the writ petition would not have been enforceable.
