Section 25 (3) of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 56 and 115 promises to pay a breach suit to recover the balance amount of work done by the plaintiff on which, on 3 1 1990 Filed on 27 1 1997 for work. In response to a constitutional request filed by the defendant, submitted in the High Court on 6 1996 2 1996, the report was barred by the plaintiff of the evidence which admitted that the defendant had submitted the bill. Accordingly, the final payment of Rs 6,43,156 is not in the record for rejecting such report. Such a promise by the defendant to pay the balance amount to the defendant under section 25 (3) of the Contract Act, 1872, for the defendant to refuse to pay the balance amount to the defendant. Was a violation of which the plaintiff sued. After the settlement of his constitutional petition by the High Court on 27 1 1997 299 1996, the claimant's claim would fall under Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and his Article 56 was not decided in the circumstances. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
