Find a Lawyer

NASIRA BEGUM versus TARIQ HABIB

Section 62 of the Special Relief Act (1 of 1877), Section 12 of the Convention In relation to a small shop, an agreement was made with the claimant who was the owner of the commercial complex, followed by the agreement to be paid in installments. I was raised. , Occupying more than the area of the shop mentioned in the contract and before the plaintiff paid extra money for any other shop of the same complex, was fully considered and the shop was occupied but the property description given in it Due to the difference in the contract, the defendant refused to grant the plaintiff the proprietary rights with the claim that no modification of the contract was made to the contract but the plaintiff's lawsuit was ordered for the specific performance of the contract. But the order was set aside on appeal. On the contract, he also acknowledged the receipt of an additional amount and at the same time was unable to provide any satisfactory explanation for the receipt of the excess amount of the Department of Excise and Taxation, it was confirmed that the plaintiff disputed. In connection with the shop was appearing in the records of the department and the plaintiff's failure to enter the witness box and the failure to sign the contract because of the society's norms, he had to pay his own settlement through his husband. The appellate court, which was presenting as a witness on its behalf, failed to consider if the original agreement. Recover additional money was why he was in the store mentioned in the contract? Payment was made by the plaintiff and because she was occupying the disputed shop, all of this was sufficient to establish the contract and her contract was signed by the parties. advocates from Noorpur nooranga lawyer