Sections 7 (4) and 23 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R 11 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 12 of the Sale Agreement in rejecting the Claimant's request for The specific performance claim was filed in respect of the disputed property that the disputed property was sold in the execution of the decree passed in favor of the bank, with a sum of Rs. 5,964,000 worth Rs. 23,200,000. Defendant contested and filed an application under OVII, R 11. The trial court rejected the plaintiff's request for a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the CPC read with section 23 (2) of the Financial Institutions (Security 7) (Office Recovery) Ordinance, The Contract, the defendant could not have taken the position that the contract was void or that it had come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Court under Section 7 (4) and Section 23 of the Financial Contracts. F-Ordinance, 2001 Party did not approve and reacted in the same breath, the record disclosed that the plaintiff had paid his bargaining through banking channels, as well as the defendant, received it from the banking court and property. Were the financial questions (rehabilitation) under financial questions not in violation of Section 23 (2) of the Ordinance 2001, nor were the parties' valuable rights involved in the matter, the proceedings before the trial court could not be stopped. Placing the trial hearing in the technician's guillotine The plaintiff failed to indicate any misrepresentation or non-readability of the material available on the plaintiff's record, or any unlawful or material bail in the disappearance order of the trial court petition. The rule was rejected by the High Court
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
