Section 12 (2) and OX, R 13 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), the section 12 suit for the specific performance of the contract, the prior decision and decree, the preceding decision and a decree were passed against the defendant. Including damages claimed by the plaintiff. Demand for fraud and misrepresentation called for a partial decision and set aside the previous ruling. At the time of publication of the notice in the validity newspaper, the 2005 nail was never dismissed for illegal prosecution, while a 2005 nail was pending for trial. The objection to the Office of the Limitations was, in fact, No Nil of the suit 2005, long after it was dismissed for illegal prosecution, a notice was published on the page of a newspaper designated for another city H on 9 10 2006 and related. Was not for the city. As was claimed by the plaintiff without recording any evidence for damages but the court did not have to immediately approve the purpose of ex parte decree for damages / repetitive damages. The plaintiff was bound to decide the competence strictly on the basis of the claims made in the court and according to law the former party decree was passed on 9-8 2008, the affidavit was recorded on the record without any evidence but the plaintiff was present in his Avoid being exposed to intelligence and recording your own evidence. There was no evidence of self-prosecution. In the circumstances there were no defendants; no notice and / or summons was ever properly presented. The prerequisite for proper exercise was the prior judgment and the decree passed against the defendant. up to
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
