Find a Lawyer

NOOR MUHAMMAD versus GUL ZAMIN

Section 12 Convention evidence (10 of 1984) was directed against the decision to enter the Arts 45 and 113 suit petitions for the specific performance of the contract and was filed by the plaintiff under the trial court order. The verdict of the case was pronounced, which the defendant had previously opposed. This agreement, which was not signed / executed by him, was not binding. Secondly, a similar case was stayed after approximately 5 years of execution of the alleged contract while the execution of the said contract was 3 years, in which case the commitment was required that the defendant supply the wood Or not. In the event of the failure of the plaintiff and his failure, he was responsible for paying the amount to the plaintiff. The answer said that this question is a positive one. The accepted position was that the parties had executed the agreement whereby the defendants sold 60% of their royalty rights to the plaintiff with the timber. In addition to the agreement, the defendant also exercised the power of attorney in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff after refusing to hand over the agreed amount of wood as the defendant wrote in his written statement. The alleged contract was admissible to be executed, could not be denied execution, and he was obliged to do so, and he was responsible for handing over the timber to the aforesaid contract or alternatively to the defendant's plaintiff. He was responsible for paying the money that the matter was time bound, he had no power but the defendant did not He is neither in his written statement nor in the initial objections lawer from fb area from Choa Saiden Shah lawyer