HASANI ESTATE THROUGH PROPRIETOR versus VICTORY ASSOCIATES THROUGH PROPRIETOR
O XXXIX, Rr 1 & 2 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 12, 42 and 54 of the Contract Specific Performance, Declaration, Damages and Application for Interim Order Claimant for Permanent Order, a State Agency Has marketing experience in the State. , Filed with the claim that the letter allegedly issued by the respondent for the cancellation of the contract was illegal and had no legal effect. And that they are allowed to take action under it. Under the settlement agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to 2% of the commission for the reservation of shops, flats and offices, which was to be erected in the building and the plaintiff had nothing to threaten the plaintiff. Cause interference and harassment. And the defendant was not allowed to increase the construction of the building The plaintiff had filed an interim injunction against the plaintiff in order to protect his right to the construction on the building, which was being withheld by the plaintiff. The reason for justice imposed by the courts on cultivating orders, even if this case does not come strictly under the provisions of RR 1, 2 of the AXXNX, CPC was a judicial process which Under which a party was ordered to perform a particular act and to abstain from such order, may be either compulsory or prohibited in nature. The merger was prevented or predicted for the purpose of preserving the status of the plaintiff because it has come to the record that the claimant was obstructing the construction of the building, so it would be appropriate and appropriate, for such interference to the plaintiff. The order was withheld, especially because the plaintiff had no contract with the construction
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
