Section & Q Law In this testimony (of 1984 of of), Article ?? partition suit for divisional residential commissioner considered suit property to be unimportant and recommended that the property be sold and the parties sold their shares by sale. Be given when the sale of a suit property is in progress. The open auction was initiated, the parties reached an agreement and it was decided that one of the participating companies would pay the full sale price of the property to the other partner within three months, which, if considered, the other partner. Raised to clear the property in a partner dispute and to hand over the offer to the vacant country The shareholder could not deposit the agreed amount of shares sold within a three-month period. But upon his request, the deposit period was extended and he deposited the money during the extension period. The respondents (the other partner) received their own shares, while the share of the applicant was deposited in the treasury under the court order. The applicant was that the agreement between the parties was not binding as the time was not considered by the respondent participant. The applicant offered to increase the price to all other shareholders in the petition under section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893. The petition was erroneously accepted by the respondent's partner by the trial court behind the applicant's back and that he was seriously condemned. The applicant's previous plea in the application resulted in a compromise between the parties under question. In section 3 and 4, the question of estoppel will arise in the case of Partition Act, 1893.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
