Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IDREES versus SHER MUHAMMAD

Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 Interim Order Prohibition, the grant of enforcement of the plaintiff was solidified in the case that the defendants had to sell Rs. The agreement was executed but after that they refused to take the balance amount and forcibly snatched the original contract to sell it, the trial court heard the advice of submitting the balance sale under the interim order. ? Hardship imposed by the trial court was not a question of fact of sale agreement, which was yet to be settled after recording the evidence, also through secondary evidence when the plaintiff stated that he was in agreement after payment. Agreeing to enforce the alleged balance amount, it was thought he had money in his pocket and sat outside the court awaiting the direction of the PL. The plaintiff was allegedly seizing a land worth Rs 2,00,000 through payment of 1 / 4th of the value. Not only was the sale contract denied to be executed, but it was also declared a fraudulent and fraudulent claimant, and even with caution, it should have been foreseen to submit a balance to show his error, such as a trial. Under the court, the defendant's resistance to the trial case was neither reasonable nor based on the principles of justice in the court's order. The following two courts may, with the interim injunction, reject such relief even when the court accepts the implementation of the sale agreement, making the relief case equal to the specific performance. By doing this, immigration advocate from Feroz Watan lawyer