Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR AND OTHERS versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXLI, R24 Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 118 Specific Performance of the Transfer Agreement Conduct of Participants in the Partnership for Justice Claimant Administration Case The trial court in the interest of the plaintiffs asserted their right to the suit on the basis of negotiations for the execution of the proceedings, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs but the appellate court And the High Court dismissed the plea by the accused. Concerning the decision of the review petition, the High Court should have been on remand for the matter, there was no evidence of oral exchange nor any evidence of kinship reinforcement, nor was it reflected on their respective Wandas. The confiscation of the partners was not done by the consent of the High Court. The appellate court concluded that the alleged exchange agreement had not been proved and that the question of whether the matter was an innovation was before the execution of such agreement on the court's alleged exchange deed in 11 2 1969. It should or should not have been clearly considered outside the scope of action, but after more than 17 years of relief, a specific performance case was filed on 22 12 1986. Because of the otherwise discretionary nature of the specific performance, the basis for such a 17-year delay was to deny specific performance if the evidence on the record was sufficient, instead of remanding the court to the subpoena forum. There was no course that should have been decided. O XLI, R 24, subject to CPC registration advocate from Parachinar lawyer