MST. NOORAN MAI versus AHMAD BUKHSH
Article 17 Special Relief Act (of 1877), on the basis of an oral agreement to confirm the Section 12 suit sale agreement, the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial but the appellate court held that the defendant said But once the change was entered and it was canceled, the defendant was attacked to prove the contract's absence by proving the sale agreement in his favor by the defendant defendant. Defendant Ounce refused to execute the sale agreement in connection with the payment of consideration money. Yes, the same appellate court had wrongly accused the defendants to prove that the defendant should have been discharged by the defendant instead of the plaintiff, not the law required by the defendant to prove the negligence. Was.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
property advocates from Chakwal lawyer
