Sections 12, 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908) for the O IX, R 6 suit declaration, the specific performance of the oral contract for the sale of immovable property and the permanent injunction were not presented despite the defendant's service and their Action was taken against. The plaintiff was dismissed simultaneously, because it was based on a verbal agreement to sell the whole case and the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence or evidence to substantiate his claim. Legitimacy law did not require that the contract or contract sale of the immovable property be in writing only, however, where a party proceeded to seek an order for the specific performance of the sale of the immovable property by virtue of an oral agreement only. Came into being, the party was under heavy burden of proving that there existed a conclusive doctrine of concluding oral agreement and the parties to the oral agreement, and the highly satisfactory Order IX, Rule 6, CPC empowers court to hear case for trial Even without recording, it was not expected that the court would close its eyes and mechanically pass a decree and judgment in favor of the plaintiff when a court stopped its defense. Taken. The defendant, in the exercise of discretion, had to decide whether to issue a claim against the defendant after the recording of the evidence or without the recording of the evidence, and like all discretion in the court, such discretion was granted by the court. Had to build Satisfy the court's consciousness regarding the existence of any valid trial court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
