Section 12 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), the decision was made in favor of the plaintiff at the time of the section 55 suit for the specific performance of the contract, which was filed by the appellant by the appellant court. Accepted and the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's order. The notice was given to the defendant after the expiration of the expiration date, so the expiration date of the performance, therefore, was not generally the basis of the contract in the specific performance contract at the time of the immovable property. When specifically mentioned, the Contracting Defendant itself received the money and extended the Term and did not give any notice to terminate the Contract that was the essence of the Contract at that time the Plaintiff, however, without notice to the Defendant. Cannot perform its part of the agreement of Time could not be taken as the essence of the contract because the appellate court had erred, stating that it had an expiration date and that the contract was the essence of the contract, and a review request was accepted.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
