Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SOHRAB KHAN---PLAINTIFF versus MUMTAZ BEGUM

A VII, R 11 Court Fee Act (VII of 1870), Section 13 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 12, 42 and 54 for special performance suit, declaration and permanent injunction Was denied. The plaintiff's property was based on a property sale agreement that defendant's son executed; in favor of the plaintiff, nothing was on record to show that defendant's son was his mother's authorized agent. Which enters into the contract in this matter. The receipt of the property not only obtained the signature of the defendant's son. It was also no witness to the stated contract. There is no cause for effect. In the circumstances it can be said that the plaintiff has been charged against the plaintiff. It can be instructed to perform. The terms of the agreement in the letters and the spirit suit were not retained, and the plaintiff's use of the automotive option may be dismissed under AVII, R 11, CPC permission, however, as the plaintiff's withdrawal of court fees That was a preliminary step in the trial Pakistan, top advocate family court from Miran Shah lawyer