Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YAQUB versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD

Special Relief Act 1877 Sections 8 and 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XVI, R 1 and O XLI, Rr 22, 25 for the specific performance of the contract and the resulting sale agreement against the seller Suit for Recovery of Occupancy for Specific Performance Previously, the trial court settled both cases against the buyers and dismissed them on 27-22 1992, before buyers decided against the judgment and order 27 5 1992. Appeal was filed, while buyers and sellers later filed cross objections and the Court of Appeal obtained the remand. The case was filed in the trial court for a fresh verdict on the whole matter, but the cross-objection was dismissed with the observation that the remand decision should have been entered in the trial court after a separate appeal was filed, and it also observed It was reported that matters relating to property ownership filed by buyers were later excluded. After their cross-objection was dismissed, thus, the dismissal of their case was finalized. The Dugat and Decree, dated 27 5 1992, was neither here nor there, nor was the Appellate Court. The judgment was set aside with the direction of the trial court to decide all the cases; neither party had challenged the remand order, the trial court did not take any action in the case. Thereafter, a vigilant mind of prosecuting claims filed by the buyers, which led to the dismissal upon confirmation in the appeal, was such that the course of action would indeed have prejudiced the buyers. And caused Pakistan, top advocate family court from Chawinda lawyer