Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD KHAN versus MUHAMMAD AMIR

Civil Procedure Code Order IV of the CPC Institution of Suite A I, R1 High Court (Lahore) Rules, Volume 1, Chap 1 13 (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 4, under which The 23-year-old case is approved. 11 The Presiding Officer of the Court of 1967 was on a visit and the court was held in a different place. In his absence, no one had the authority to receive placards by the District Judge or by a Civil Judge, then a suit was filed before Ahmed of the court on 23 11 1967, which was before the trial court. In the absence of an opinion by the Prime Minister on 27 11 1967, the effect of receipt of the plots was strictly prohibited except in the case where the court was open but the presiding officer was on leave and no other judicial officer was in charge. Was. The current duty suit, as such, was not properly established on 23 11 1967, which was presented to the Presiding Officer on 27 11 1967, which was the first working day of his court after returning from that visit. Therefore, under them, the vision of the Act, limitation act, vision 190 vision8, if the court were to close the expiry date of any limitation, the case before the opening day of the court may be considered and considered. That it has been filed within the limits. immigration advocates phone number from Shamsabad lawyer