Section 12 of the Contempt of Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17 and 79, the defendants filed a specific performance of the sale agreement on the basis that they had 63 as the outstanding balance in respect of the claimant's claim against the disputed property. , Paid 438 rupees. And said that they had not received any money for the trial trial, the appellate court dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the trial court's decision and order were set aside, The dispute raised by the defendants was signed. The alleged sale agreement was made on a lease basis and was never signed as a contract for sale. The defendants further asserted that the contentious document, which included financial matters, was to be proved under Art. 17 and 79. E-Shahadat, a legitimate plaintiff in 1984, presented one of three witnesses. Even in the cross-examination, the witness mentioned was against the defendant's stance that one of the defendants was paid Rs 5,000 - one of the defendant's witnesses testified in his interim inquiry that no one was in his presence. In the presence of only one witness who was not paid, the appellate court should have participated in this part of the evidence before deciding the matter, contradicting the view of the appellate court, The trial court's High Court upheld the review request and set aside the verdict and order. Appellate Court \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
