Find a Lawyer

ZAHID RAHMAN versus MUHAMMAD ALI ASGHAR RANA

Section 12 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Articles 48 and 55 of the Contempt of Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 102 and 103 documented the time-balance as the essence of the specific performance of the contract of oral exclusion by documentary evidence. Deposit money Effective plaintiffs in her case demanded specific performance of the agreement that defendant was not prepared to pay part of his contract because despite repeated calls, he did not submit development charges in due date. As a result, the suit plot was not available for him. On the due date, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance consideration according to the terms of the agreement because time was of the essence of the contract and he was preparing And the willingness to perform their part of the evidence that the agreement was available on record showed that the defendant was ready to transfer the plot, but the plaintiff showed my lack of court direction. However, considering the plaintiff's balanced balance, it did not prove that the seller had agreed to the contract for three months due to the plaintiff's silence. He was willing to pay the obligations, otherwise the plaintiff failed to produce the sealed material and declared the seller to be the plaintiff (the defendant), for the execution and registration of the buyer (the plaintiff) was obliged to execute and Prepare the consignment for registration and tender to the same seller (defendant); no attempt was made to confirm the housing society's record of payment of development charges. Partial development charges remain unaffected by the plaintiff (vendor). Can't prove it list of advocates from Lalshanra lawyer