KANIZ FATIMA versus SH. MUHAMMAD SOHAIL
The essence of the suit agreement for the specific performance of the sale of immovable property under section 55 of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877) was extended twice during the period after which the parties' refusal of the mutual consent of the parties The contract was terminated after the agreement was enforced to terminate the contract, the suit was pronounced by the trial court for the specific performance of the contract and was upheld by the appellate court. The essence of the contract was not the essence of the deal at the time of sale of the real estate, at the time the courts did not commit any illegal or irregularities, while the plaintiff's High Court order was filed by the defendants. The second appeal was dismissed.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
property advocates from Sohawa District Daska lawyer
