Section 12 law evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17 and 79 suits were filed on the basis of the contract by the plaintiff on the basis of the merits of the contract for special performance which was dismissed and the second case established on a trial basis. The same case was dismissed by the trial court. The legal case was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the original contract of sale, which was dismissed after withdrawing the agreement between the parties, no fresh case was filed on the basis of the same deal for the alleged sale of the contract. Could go Was there an assertion in which there was no reference to any previous agreement nor suit land? Syed Yedshit was made on a plain paper while the original contract was on stamp paper signed by the parties, and witnesses said that the plot was not the end of the deal and there could be no lawsuit. The same was allegedly filed against the memorandum for not having an independent contract and no stamp duty was paid on which it was not proved. Legislative evidence, Arts 17 and 79 of 1984, did not mention Yadasht in the petition for permission to withdraw the former suit party to prove the document and a specific date for proving the issuance of the stamp paper and He was required to be executed on time. , Registration of the stamp vendor's register, writing of such document by writing the script and entry of the script registered by the trial court was in accordance with the law and the appeal was not lacking under the facts of the record.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
