Sections 12, 42 and 54 For the specific performance of the contract, the trial, the plaintiff, and the permanent injunction against the plaintiff were that he seized the property, which he sold to the defendant by a contract of sale for Rs. 50,000. Who had purchased from The plaintiffs' success in selling the suit property to the plaintiff had successfully proved that it had successfully proved the execution of the contract by presenting it to the author, as well as the counterfeit testimony filed by the plaintiff. It was excluded on the basis that the author did not write the NIC number. The registrant had different national ID card numbers in the process as well as the defendant's signature on the register, although it was not mentioned in the register, but the same was written in the process name Subscriber said. Defendant's signatures disagree. Procedure and register But neither the court itself has made any comparisons nor has any expert been cited for the opinion on this score The accuracy of the contract process cannot be doubted due to the overwhelming evidence available on file, The two courts below were admitted to the defendant before writing the case; in the circumstances, they failed to interpret the evidence in its original context and the plaintiff was made unlawful by not prosecuting. That the entire evidence on record was not taken into account, but selected minor sections and important controversies were reported below. The refusal to grant relief to the plaintiffs of the two courts was laid. Not only arbitrary, but also controversial and inaccurate for law decisions and lower court orders.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
