Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IQBAL versus KHURSHID AHMAD PERVAIZ

Arts 17, 78 and 79 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), O. VIII, RR 4 and 5 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), _4rt 113 Special Relief Act (1 of 1877), suit for specific performance of 5 12 contract Documents required by law to be sold to him he disclosed denial of certain denial share performance limit The plaintiff claimed for certain performance of the contract of sale on the basis that the claimant consented to the sale. And paid about 2/3 of the agreed-upon selling price. Built a hall and installed machinery, had electric and gas connections to his name and the property tax payment agreement was extended by another contract The plaintiff did not deny his signature in his written statement, but alleged That it was obtained by fraud on an empty stamp. The paper's plaintiff sued the plaintiff for allegations of infringement because the defendant's extradition case was dismissed by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the case. The law was a document that was confirmed by two male witnesses according to the law. It was affirmed under Article and17 of the Law Ahmad Shahadat 1984 1984 of 1984 and it was proved that the two case witnesses were produced under Article 79 of the Convention of Convention of 1984 of 79, leaving the plaintiff. Only one witness was produced later. The sale agreement did not prove to be required by the witnesses, so the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of 1984 were not applicable. The plaintiff refused to enforce the agreements. The plaintiff acknowledged his signature. The appellate court made false statements property advocate from Jalozai lawyer