Find a Lawyer

SHAMS-UD-DIN versus NUSRAT HUSSAIN CHEEMA

Article 19 and Article 113 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), section 12 suit for the specific performance of the contract of sale, the extension of the term recovery agreement was enacted in 1 1974 and sale agreement 1 1975 was to be filed. The defendant relied on the receipt of 30 197 1977 filed on 29 4 1980, under which it alleged that the defendant had received the repayment partum, on the same charge that the recovery case was tried. The receipt was not proved by the plaintiff, so the case was that the judgment and decree omitted by the trial were retained by the appellate court. The plaintiff's opinion was that the limitation period would be extended by the recovery process of 30 197 1977, which was a joint fact between the two courts. The plaintiff received was never executed by the plaintiff and did not pay part of the reimbursement for the agreed amount within the agreed period. Nor did he do anything to complete the sale process until the due date, therefore, the claimant could not benefit from the receipt, such receipt was not an amount of confession under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 And a contract to sell specific contractual performance. Discretionary Relief, both the courts rightly denied the plaintiff in the exercise of their discretion on the basis of the evidence on the record, which was neither contradictory nor a proportional and irrational High Court final result of the facts. I refused to intervene. Court below ask a advocate free from Sialkot lawyer