Find a Lawyer

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF KASHMIR AFFAIRS versus FAKHAR-UD-DIN THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTED

Not to increase the appeal of the Appellate Court interlocutory application limits for the specific performance of the Section 12 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 3 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), A XLI, R 33 and Section 100 suits for sale. The decision, by the trial court authorities in 1967, demanded the plaintiff to sign a suit property agreement, but no such agreement was signed between the parties, filed by the plaintiff in 1974. The decision was made in favor of the plaintiff in the year for the specific performance of the contract entered into. In 1980, and the first appeal in favor of it was also decided that the plea submitted by the authorities was that the matter was withheld and the court should have taken notice of the same authorities It was also claimed that an amendment to the written statement was sought which highlighted the extent of the matter but the request was rejected, the correct concrete action, the trial court was bound to restrict it. Especially when the application seeks to amend such effect in the written statement that the matter was moved The issue to be considered at the time of the decision of this observation was not sufficient to meet the conclusion of justice that such an amendment in the written statement to determine the dispute was fully legitimate. Delaying itself between the parties and filing a petition does not stand in the way of the court that such an amendment court may compensate the other party at reasonable costs, although the decree, under which the amendment to the written statement, etc. Not rejected by online advocate from Doaaba lawyer