1980 PLP 1775 (CLC)
AKBAR-Petitioner Versus Mst. JEHANDADI AND OTHFRS — Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 1775 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | AKBAR-Petitioner Versus Mst. JEHANDADI AND OTHFRS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 1775 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 1775 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 1775 (CLC) (AKBAR-Petitioner Versus Mst. JEHANDADI AND OTHFRS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.5 and Civil Procedure Code; (V of 1908) O. XLI, r. 11(2)-Limi tation
Application of petitioner for restoration of appeal made beyond prescribed period of limitation and dismissed for default-No extension, held, can be granted to such person.
Judgment & Decree
Revision against the order of District Judge, Rawalkot dated 15-3-1978 decided on 15th May, 1978.
S.5 and Civil Procedure Code; (V of 1908) O. XLI, r. 11(2)-Limi tation
Application of petitioner for restoration of appeal made beyond prescribed period of limitation and dismissed for default-No extension, held, can be granted to such person. JUDGMENTS This revision is directed against order dated 15-3-1978 of the District Judge, Rawalakot by which the application for restoration of appeal was dismissed by him. It was for the 30th day of October, that -the appeal was fixed for hearing. The appellant and his counsel both failed to appear before the Curt when the case was called on for hearing on 30-10-1977. It was stated by the petitioner that due to his illness he was unable to attend the Court on the dated fixed and thus according *to him, ht; had a sufficient cause for the readmission of the appeal but his plea was ignored without any reason. That may or may not be so but the application for restoration of appeal was made beyond the prescribed period of limitation. No extension under section 5 of the Limitation Act car, be granted to a person whose application was dismissed in default under Order XLI, rule 11(2), C. P. C. Application for restoration of an ,appeal tinder rule 19 of the same Order is governed by Article 168 of the Limitation Act ; and it should be filed within 30 days from the date of the dismissal of the appeal. The application for restoration was made on 6-12-1977, obviously beyond a period of limitation prescribed by law. Therefore, this revision petition is liable 'to be dismissed. That being so, it is hereby dismissed with costs. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.