Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SALEEM versus MUKHTAR AHMAD

CPC Appearance and Non-Pursuit Results of Civil Procedure Code Order IX O IX, R 13 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) separating the preceding Part Decree Placing was approved on 21 6 1977 Applicants claimed that they were not served and that the previous party decree was passed on their backs Applicants allegedly know the former party order on 25 8 1980. Had gone and on 29 9 1980 he applied to keep the former party separate. The plaintiffs, likewise, had, on their acquittal, applied for the separation of the previous party order 34 days after acquiring knowledge, under the terms of Article ?4, Limitation Act, 8 190 ex8 An application for separation of the previous party decree should have been made within thirty days. The former party was aware of the decree but the applicants were too late to do so. The view taken by the High Court was that the delay of four days was not properly explained in the provisions for keeping the ex parte decree. Should not be bound. To file a certified copy of such decree, along with applying for the separation of the previous party decree, even if it is deemed that the applicants had acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree on 25 8 1980, but their arrangement There was no good explanation of my failure to submit the application. After the expiry of the four-day ban period, the order of the former parliament was dropped, that is, thirty days after the acquisition of the previous order, the High Court's decision was correct that the delay of four days was not properly stated. I was allowed to appeal. Conditions us immigration advocates from Bewal lawyer