Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), suits AXXI, Rr 30, 40, 47 and 59, claim specific performance of the contract to sell the vehicle The plaintiff claims to recover the vehicle's balance sale price from the accused. And its pre-partial decree passed against the defendant and the guarantor of such a balanced cost recovery, while preventing the excise and taxation authority from moving the vehicle to another body in the name of the decree holder. The vehicle detained by the action police was later complied with in accordance with the vehicle's execution court order. After the court intervened on the delivery, it was restored that its balance sale price was not a suit except the trial court after it rejected its claim to be a better buyer, while the decreeing suit did the specific performance of the contract. Had not ordered, but had approved the decree. For the purpose of recovering the balance sale price, the decree did not prohibit the sale and the vehicle purchase enforcement court did not adopt. O XXI, R 30, The proper procedure for executing the mini-decree has been decided in CPC That the duty of the court may attach and sell the debtors' property or arrest them even though the order was in the name of the holder, but it was recovered from the possession. The interlocutor, who was neither responsible for the decision nor accused of being in the possession of the judgment debtor. In the absence of an adjournment order, the executing court had seized the vehicle; possession of the vehicle by the police would not benefit the cause nor could it be legal.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
