Sections 8, 12 and 42 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 214 Statute of Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 79 The plaintiff obtained, through alternative performance of the contract of sale or alternatively Rs. 1,800,000 and The defendants filed a lawsuit under the Permanent Order Prohibition. On the basis that one of the defendants had considered the sale of a million dollars and handed over the possession of a room, one defendant sued on the basis that he had sold his controversial property to his general attorney. Never allowed because the final beneficiary was the brother of the general attorney and said that the defendant had appealed to the plaintiff's attorney and his brother trial court to dismiss the case filed in the appellate court of the plaintiff and against both. Had also filed a claim for a permanent injunction, dismissing the same reasonable plaintiff and dismissing the defendant. There was a real brother who did not get the amount of Rs 5 lakh. A minor witness did not appear and, as such, it has been proved on record that the plaintiff who took the final advantage of the alleged sale agreement was a brother of the lower courts, As it turns out, not one of the principal / defendants was paid, and it was the general attorney who cheated on the brother-in-law of his real brother. However, if there was an alleged $ 5 million transaction between one of the defendants and the attorney general, it was very easy for General Orney to obtain an injunction on that basis. Why did he arrange a new contract to sell the natural pursuit in such a situation that he did not trust the new deal and thus
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
