The trial court ruled in the trial on the Section 12 suit for the specific performance of the contract for sale filed by the plaintiff / buyer, but the appellate court overturned the trial court's ruling and order The legitimate lawyer was rejected and the witnesses specifically confirmed that the sale agreement had been executed in their presence. And the money was given to the defendant / seller, thereby requiring a specific role to confirm the witnesses in relation to any agreement, confirming that the parties were implementing the agreement. Whether or not it happened, there is no evidence of the defendant's testimony. The fact of the cross-examination is that the witnesses did not know the name of the contract writer, which was not a dispute, neither was required by law nor was there anything that could lead to a compelling negative result. Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not agree with the trial court that the seller's signatures on the sale contract were different from those approved by him, both courts examined the seller's signatures, Compared the signatures of the National ID card and concluded that both the appellate courts had compared the signatures with the bank. A. From the signature of the available sample and conclude that they are both different. In view of the different results of the two courts, the court should consider the expert's opinion on the matter rather than its decision. Instead of merely relying on it, the decisions of the two courts were set aside and the matter referred to the trial court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
