Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 148, directed the defendant to file a suit filed by the plaintiff for a period of thirty days for non-payment of the balance not considered in the performance of the contract. The trial court had ruled. Four months after the expiry of the fixed period, four months after the expiry of the fixed term, the single judge of the High Court refused to extend the time to delay the deposit and there was no scope for extension of the period. The specific performance lawsuit was not in the nature of the preliminary injunction and the court became a function of the purpose of passing any further order in relation to such order, extending the time to the court and selling the issue. A payment order was issued. Consider. But such discretion should be exercised with truth and rarely based on the facts and circumstances of the EAC case and cannot be used merely to say that a single High Court judge dismissed the request by saying Not that it became a function offsend for the purpose of approving another order, or that it had no authority to pass such an order, or that the decree was final and not an initial order but he thought it It was argued that the request for an extension in this period was not valid to permit the request. The matter was inconceivable and therefore, no interference was sought in the High Court of Appeal which was dismissed under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
