Section 54 Contract Act (IX of 72 1872 of), Section 51 of the Limitation Act (IX of 8888), Section 115 permanent dismissal of the suit for maintaining a permanent injunction, secondly, the defendant had his own Failed to perform part. The agreement on the land issue, and therefore the defendant, was not obliged to give the defendant the right that the valid contract between the parties to the contract was a recognized document if the promise failed to pay part of that agreement. So, the lawyer, in the interest of the plaintiffs, was under his rights to reject the agreement within the time limit set by the law, after the plaintiff terminated the contract for approximately 25 years. Could not attack during which the suit was used as land. Without interference, the defendant's right to record was disclosed that the aforesaid cross was in use for the last several years and that such use was fully acknowledged by the agreement between the parties. It was claimed that the defendant had filed a case for permanent injunction without declaration if the right of way could not have been established by the defendants. Due to the agreement between the parties, it was deemed appropriate for a permanent injunction so that the orders of the courts did not face any illegal interference. The amendment was rejected. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
