Arts 17 and 79 Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Section 12 Proof of Contract The parties contracted to sell the marginal witnesses and the scabs were contracted to sell on 26 January 1990 but the defendants formed the basis of the revised agreement of 1896 1996. Filed on , And the trial court by ruling that the plaintiff had ruled that the plaintiff did not play its role in accordance with the 26 7 1990 agreement and consequently the contract was the result of fraud, the legality of the plaintiff. Did not present the author of the new contract Sale in the date of 18 1996 1996, such a mistake was fatal Marginal witnesses could not be considered as a substitute for the author Not named after the two witnesses on the subsequent contract And the name of such a witness was not even listed. The list of witnesses presented by the plaintiffs with their plaintiffs, therefore, during the cross-examination of the two witnesses, the author's statement was highly regarded, the defendants' cousins, who admitted that the seller did not pay in their presence Was gone, so the urgent need for the execution of the sale agreement was missing, therefore, the trial court erred in law, saying that the defendants had proved the execution of the alleged sale agreement. The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the new contract of sale 189 1996 because the document author's non-submission raised doubts about his factual High Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the appeal. File a court-approved decision and order. The plaintiff was dismissed in which circumstances the appeal was allowed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
