Section 12 suit for the specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of immovable property, the Court of Appeal partially ruled in favor of the claimant for a refund because one of the defendants acknowledged the settlement and recovery of the arrears. However, the plaintiff's argument for specific performance denied an injunction was that on the admission of either of the defendants that he had entered into a contract with the plaintiff as the second defendant's lawyer. In his favor, a decree should have been passed for specific performance. The other defendant admitted on record that the defendant had entered that the property was his lawyer and said that the contract was in existence. The power of attorney was later canceled. The second defendant never challenged the authority of the attorney nor filed a lawsuit in favor of the plaintiff to override the sale agreement, the only question was whether the agent (with the consent of the defendant) had acted as principal ( Second Defendant) Has there been any fraud with the plaintiff? It is necessary to ascertain whether the consent of the accused is a certified lawyer and if he has the right to sell the suit property then the other plaintiff was a legitimate lawyer and he has the right to sell the suit land. So the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction for specific performance, the High Court put the orders of the courts under one and ordered that, under the circumstances, the matter be allowed to be revised
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
