Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHAR-UL-HAQ versus KHAIR DIN

Section 12 and 42 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OIR 10 (S) limitation for the specific performance of the suit agreement agreed to sell the house to the defendant and Plaintiff's son, Plaintiff's son, initially filed a lawsuit claiming to be in his country for partial execution of the deal, but later amended the lawsuit and signed the agreement. Relief was added for the specific performance of the Act, under which the appellate court upheld this order. The performance was settled in the contract, rather it was held that after the issuance of the clearance certificate, the plaintiff would only be referred to the transfer, which is considered a notice of refusal to contract, the plaintiff of the prosecution. The resignation of the plaintiff requested the absence of a termination notice assuming that the plaintiff received such cancellation notice on 24 6 1978, the suit was Fie 30 under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908, led by 1980 The fixed term was for a period of three years, the amendment did not require any additional party to be imposed so as to attract OI, R 10 (5), CPC restrictions. The question about this threshold cannot be ruled out. The High Court dismissed the review request immigration advocates email from Tarnol lawyer