Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD BASHIR versus ABDUL RAUF

Sections 12 and 42 of the plaintiffs sued for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis that they did not comply with the sale of a contract and this was the result of fraud and misrepresentation and the plaintiffs filed a statement through the plaintiffs. Fought for and filed a lawsuit for specific performance. Plaintiffs' trial sale agreement and the lawsuit filed by the appellate court of the plaintiffs were dismissed. On appeal, the trial court's contention raised by the defendants was that the sale agreement was not proved. Because both witnesses did not have the slightest. Has been presented to the legitimate buyer of the stamp paper as the key witness to the record intended to buy the stamp paper The defendants presented only one witness who stated that the disputed document was presented to him. Was not written, nor was anyone signed. Earlier; another witness told a completely different story. The defendants failed to prove the documents processed and the consideration paid. The High Court had set aside the judgment and order passed by the appellate court and restored the judgment and judgment passed by the trial court which was heard by the High Court.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• ABDUL REHMAN alias GAGI v. State 2011 PLD 92
• HABIB BANK LTD. through duly Authorized Attorneys v. FAIQA TRADING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through Director and Chief Executive Officer 2011 CLD 92
• IRFAN v. State 2011 PCrLJ 95
• MURAD TARIQ v. State 2011 YLR 96
• Dr. GHULAM RABANI KHAN v. PCSIR through Chairman, Islamabad 2011 PLC(CS) 99
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN LODHI v. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE 2011 PLD 102
• Syed AZMAT HUSSAIN v. CHAIRMAN, NAB 2011 PCrLJ 104
• REHMAT ALI v. State 2011 CLC 105

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

patent advocate from Morgah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes