MST. HAKAM BIBI THROUGH L.RS versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD THROUGH L.RS.
Special Performance of Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), Section 48, O XX, R 14 Sc O XXI, R 38 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 181 Execution, Limitation Decoder Holding Filing Applicant's application for a sale agreement in his favor has been finalized by the court lenders who filed an objection to the request that the execution request be banned because it was more than three years later. Was filed. But the High Court, using the jurisdiction of the review, allowed the objection that the suit for the sale was a suit for the specific performance of the sale agreement, with the holders available to the holders since the sale agreement was executed. Therefore, they were not required to file an extortion request. Lenders of the property filed by the judgment debtors may file a petition for the refusal of the decision lenders. The rest of the decree was not in the knowledge of the High Court that the petitioners were concerned about the deposit of the balance. Due to the failure of the parties, the decision of the High Court was submitted within the stipulated time. Within the stipulated period the decision was in favor of the holder, subject to the payment of a balanced amount that had already been deposited by them in the fixed period, therefore, the holders of the O XX, R 14, CPC Terms can be relieved. In which, after satisfying the payment order, the decree holder was not required to file an execution, it was not proper to deprive the decree holders of the rights, decree holders, to deposit money through them. After h
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
