Find a Lawyer

MEHMOOD AHMAD versus MALIK ABDUL GHAFOOR

Articles 12 and 22 of the testimony (10 of 1984), Article 81, for the specific performance of the contract by the seller the plaintiff contend that the contract balance was canceled for failure to sell and a substantial amount was seized during the cross inspection. Was. The plaintiff was not given notice of the cancellation of the contract and the forfeiture of the forfeiture The defendant did not specifically refuse to receive the sincere amount, no further proof of the contract would be required under the agreement or the defendant in the contract Ali had said that there was a dispute between him and her. The third party will be resolved through arbitration and that he had raised the claimant to inform the plaintiff of his preparation for the execution of the sale agreement, but did not report such to the plaintiff and the plaintiff There was no need to prove the existence of a dispute between the third-party plaintiff. He asserted that they were all ready and willing to pay their share of the contract, especially in the evidence as the plaintiff's claim was decided under the circumstances. \ R \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• PUNNAM KHAN v. State 2011 PCrLJ 517
• ALI SARWAR v. Syed SHUJAT ALI NAQVI 2011 PLD 519
• DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, LAHORE CANTT. through Secretary v. PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED through Secretary 2011 CLC 520
• IRFAN ALI alias GHULAM RAZA alias RAMZAN v. State 2011 YLR 522
• AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager, Principal Officer v. MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN 2011 CLD 523
• Mst. KHURSHID KHATOON v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Finance Department 2011 PLC(CS) 524
• USMAN TARIQ v. State 2011 PCrLJ 530
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHEIKH v. MANZAR HASSAN 2011 PLD 531

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

how to become a advocate from Daulat Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes