Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus MST. NOOR SAIN

Paragraph 2 (12) and 24 (3) (5) of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), section 12 (2) suit for the specific performance of the contract of sale under section 12 (2), CPC charged Whether the case of fraud and misrepresentation has been filed by the petitioner permanently in the interest of the respondents against the petitioner was decided by the trial court and the appellate court and the decisions and orders of the above court were passed by the High Court. Regular second appeal was upheld and it was stated that the applicants had challenged under Section 12 (2), CPC dispute. The applicants' agreement was that the contract was filed because of violations of paragraphs 2 (12) and 24 (3) (5) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 [MLR 115], in the interest of the foregoing Was filed by The respondent was not enforceable and was able to declare all three decisions and orders without any jurisdiction as the applicants' convictions were revoked. The first reason is that such an application was never taken at any stage and the decision passed by the trial court was challenged before the District Judge as well as the High Court on other grounds under which the Appellate Court. Or in favor of the High Court and its decision. Trial court order confirmed. Second, because the sale agreement was not binding under MLR 115 and it was only a matter of fact, the final transfer of property under the contract which was under the provisions of MLR 115 and thirdly because the Federal Shariah Court Announced in its judgment (PLD 1989 FSC80). The provisions of paragraph 24 of MLR 115 have been in force since 1990 advocate for immigration from Tank lawyer