He died before filing a lawsuit against the seller of section 12 law-proof evidence (10 of 1984), contractual salesman selling the article Su 84 suit requirements for specific performance of the contract. Significant factors on specific performance were proving the purchase of stamp paper on a particular date; the plaintiff did not take possession of the device on the said date and did not provide possession or take possession of the dead writer. In the present case, the alleged sale agreement was not signed by the claimant on the basis of which no specific performance order could be passed in favor of which the practice for comparing the signatures recognized by the trial court was inadmissible. But that was not prohibited under Article 84 of the Law Sha Martyrdom, 1984, when the alleged seller died before filing a lawsuit and other evidence was on file as was the procedure adopted by the trial court for comparing signatures. The law was not against the law, even the handwriting expert's report was an opinion that the court Abnd was not, was based on the absence of evidence on the feasibility and file of the facts found in the trial court. The dispute between the parties was disputed and in the present case, the claim was unfounded and the trial court was a court of fact and law, and the basic interpretation of the evidence was through the evidence that the witnesses did not have the relationship of the witness to their plea. In the civil case, the plaintiff did not have the material but it was important and could not be ignored immediately or the statement of every witness should be kept in view of the relationship of the witness to the examination of the evidence by the court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
