Find a Lawyer

SHAFAQAT KARIM versus SHAUKAT KARIM

O VIII R 1 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 12 suit for the specific performance of the contract terminates the right to file a written statement by the trial court's order granting the defendant the right to file a written statement Which failed to insert the same file. Defendant's petition for revocation of the statutory period was filed to revoke the unclean order Defendant's position was that the court's readers did not have the authority to postpone the next date of hearing on which the trial court was closed. Had not made any decision. The written statement and the serious attempt to obtain the right were discontinued in a mechanical manner and without the use of the mind as the legal period was not necessary to enter the written statement. O VIII, under R 1, the CPC defendant's Getting the opportunity to file was not a mechanical statement and timely written statement, rule of law and procedure, however, at the same time, the trial court was also obliged. VIII, R 1 In order to strictly adhere to the said clause by giving notice to the defendant about the rigors of the sentence, the CPC Trial Court would not likewise enforce the amended clause in strict terms. Was responsible for failing to postpone the case. Put the defendant on notice, warning him of the termination of the right to file a written statement if the next date is further defaulted, warning that the defendant's filing right under the trial is warranted. At least one more opportunity was needed. Written Statement Although the trial court, under the Rule VIII, R1, issued a notice to CPC property advocate from Domeli lawyer