Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ATIQUE KHAN versus BARKATULLAH

Sections 42 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the XLI, R27 suit for declaration and in the specific performance of the contract claimed to be the owner of the suit house on the basis of the contract to sell the plaintiff and request. The execution and the registered process was not considered in favor of the defendant; the anonymous transaction plaintiff was dismissed for being illegal and ineffective while the trial filed by the defendant was done by the court. The determination that was made was whether the shopkeeper / defendant was hanged. The contract was intended to lift the contract vendor's signature and was confirmed by two witnesses who purchased the controversial document as a witness who clearly stated that the witnesses of the contract had neither Were not signed in the presence, nor was the document written by the plaintiff on the plaintiff's instruction. The document was incomplete, so they appeared to assist witnesses in not registering it and lied to each other completely. He then wanted to sell his house to the claimant. Appointed as the special counsel, the plaintiff took the position that the attorney received the consideration amount, filed the plaintiff's document and returned the receipts which he had issued for the consideration amount. The plaintiff did not say a single word that the contract. Whether the defendant came into action or received any money under it. He said that the appellate court should go before the plaintiff or the alleged lawyer family advocate from Thari Mirwah lawyer