Section 12 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 113 Suit Limitation for the Specific Performance of the Sale Contract The trial court ruled that suit The first appellate court accepted the appeal The original owner's suit was banned for specific work. The filing deadline was three years, beginning with the reason for the process where in the absence of a performance date was mentioned, the date on which the party was denied was closed. Specific performance suit was filed The plaintiff was obliged to file a lawsuit within three years from the death of the original owner; the photocopy of the payment filed by the claimant was a fake document after the fact that the original document was presented The plaintiff was a star witness, but he did not appear before the court, but instead, he presented his own lawyer, which showed that the plaintiff was not ready to appear in court and cross. Upon inspection, the plaintiff could not explain whether he had received the original original document that caused him to enter S. He couldn't Believing that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit, the specific performance was an arbitrary relief which could not be obtained in doubt regarding the existence of a contract of sale where the agreement and payment were not proved, the defendant stated in favor of the plaintiff. I will not make any difference to the legal heirs of a real owner The court could not even confirm a partial decree, the plaintiff failed to deal with the interference, appeal was dismissed \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
