Sections 12 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), O VII; 11 for the specific performance of the contract were dismissed by the trial court, but the appellate court reversed the trial court seeking order and remand. It is said that the plaintiff should have had the opportunity to be associated with the court fee, the conduct of the plaintiff was unfair and unfair. Since the first suit filed by him was worth Rs. 8,00,000 while in the second case, it did not state any value, no application was disclosed in the case on the petition filed by the plaintiff in the case. has been. The reason for his failure to provide the court fee required by the trial court is that the fact that the plaintiff was outside the station could not justify his failure to comply with the trial court's order without being allowed. Offer required court fees. In this regard, the plaintiff sought the specific performance of the sale contract and the relief sought by it was arbitrary and could be rightly denied in presenting the plaintiff in the circumstances set out in section 22 of the Special Relief Act, 1877 The most appropriate circumstances were presented in the case in which the plaintiff should refuse specific relief. The impeachment order was set aside and consequently the trial case was dismissed for dismissal.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
