SURRAYA NASREEN versus MUSSARRAT KHAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
The specific performance of the contract executed for the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff in recovering the damages and penalties of section 12 and 20, but due to title restrictions, the sale process could not be completed within the stipulated period, therefore, both extensions Both courts approved. , As well as claims and appeals filed by the claimant, were rejected. No credible documentary evidence was available to substantiate the plaintiff's claim, resulting in both courts denying the discretion in their favor. The plaintiff conceded that if the case was not transferable at the due date, Penalties were also included In the alternative intention, the parties held that if the transfer of the property could not be completed on the target's date, as the title was not absolute, the plaintiff would have included such a voice as the route through the penalty clause. Which was jointly held by the two courts after the evidence was presented. Section 20, the Conclusions Against Claimant's provisions of Special Relief Act, 1877; this case had no effect, as they were not eligible for alternative agreements, for which the court had to be determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. It was found that the High Court had refused to interfere with the simultaneous decisions and the second appeal was dismissed from the orders given below the two courts. Under the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
