Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RASHID AHMED versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

Under the Special Relief Act 1877 section 12 and 39 law evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 75 and 76 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 suit demanded the specific performance of the respondents' sales contract that the parties had leased. Had agreed to execute. The agreement, but together with the applicant's author and minor witnesses, the appellant implemented it because the respondents had also filed a claim for cancellation of the contract of sale and that their rights were fraudulent and The sale agreement was also filed for ineffectiveness, in both cases, the trial court ruled that the appellant's case for stability. And the respondents 'claim that the appellant had examined a minor witness and the author of the contract and proved that it was executed as a contract to sell the respondents' appeal, but not a review The petition was accepted by the High Court nor did the suit land execute the contract nor deny the appellant's possession, nor did he claim relief from the appellant in taking possession of the agreement. Trial of Trial Neither the jurisdictional error nor the reading and evidence in the judgment / orders passed by the trial court Misrepresentation can be identified and the appellate court high court intervened in such contradictory conclusions without false pretenses or evidence reading evidence. In no way did the High Court provide relief to the respondents in a written statement or during the trial because of a violation of the law, the Supreme Court accepted the appeals with costs and when you need a advocate from Rashidabad lawyer