1 & 1 of the highest bid amount offered by the auctioneer of provisions of 42 & Lim 55 Limitation Act (IX of 8, 8 of), Art 14 and 120 suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The unilateral increase in the value of the plot by the defendants after the 3rd should be deposited the same amount as per the due date of the plaintiff, otherwise the remaining amount will be deposited by the plaintiff to avoid the confiscation of the weak amount. The plaintiff's prayer was that such a unilateral increase in the bid amount was unlawful and against the rights of the successful bidder. And claimed that the claimant's claim for a refund was that the plaintiff had deposited the surplus amount without his free will and coercion, and thus was prevented from challenging it. According to the terms and conditions of the auction, the auction committee could reject or accept the bid, but instead of rejecting or accepting the claimant's bid, the bid amount presented by the higher bidding committee increased unilaterally. ? The witness testified that in order to save money from dishonor, he had deposited a fine amount under compulsion and compulsion during cross-examination that the defendant's suggestion was denied if he did not accept the increased bid amount. During cross-examination, the witness confessed that the plaintiff was not given the option to refund the balance, the defendant did not request the cancellation of the bid increase order, but he did not violate his rights. Prayed for the denial, which would attract Article 120 of the Limitation Act. , 1908 There is nothing to record that
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
