A. XVIII R 16 The law was rendered unanimous for the specific performance of the Contract for the Sale of Real Estate (Article 10 of 1984), Article 133 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 8 of the immovable property sale. The courts below rejected this case only on the confessional statement of the defendants, the validity of the case was not fixed for evidence when the contentious defendant's statement was recorded and on oath or in the presence of the parties Neither party was provided with the opportunity to cross-examine because the defendant's statement stated above was not in compliance with CPCO, XVIII, R 16 (3). The statement was neither read, nor is there any evidence of its accuracy when, if not examined, the confessional defendant could not be regarded as a piece of evidence and his confidential evidence. There was no appreciable value under Article 133 of the Act, 1984 the High Court, together with the fines, allowed the following courts to appeal the remand to the trial court and the trial court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
