A. VIII, Section 12 of the R11 Specific Relief Act (in 1877) for the specific performance of the oral contract to sell immovable property was dismissed by the plaintiff's suit at the same time as the plaintiff's case was dismissed. The court had to look at the cases only and dismissed. If the plaintiff is not found to be entitled to the injunction in favor of the plaintiff and if he or she correctly acknowledges all of the grounds mentioned in it, the plaintiff is bound to be denied but if the plaintiff is required to present evidence on the grounds stated Is. The plaintiff could not be denied in support of this, so the issue was also kept in view while the plaintiff was dismissed while rejecting, but in an unknown order without mentioning that the plaintiff could file a lawsuit. For no reason why, the oral agreement was rejected, in the present case, it is stated that the parties have entered into and the terms of the agreement have been set by the plaintiffs. There was a cause for action on the part of the plaintiff which required the prosecution to proceed, and the High Court, which was able to sustain the case, allowed the revision of the case, setting aside the defective orders. It was allowed to be modified accordingly.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
