Article 12 The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 1992 for the specific performance of the property sale agreement, the trial court ruled in the defendants' case in 1992 that the plaintiff's foreclosure pre-interest The request for appointment was moved because of the party's decree but non-prosecution, which was rejected, another petition run by the predecessor in the interest of the defendants, was also dismissed for illegal prosecution during 1996. As luck would have it, the plaintiffs in the former party order had moved their request for execution. The year 1999 and the sale agreement came into force through the court in favor of the plaintiffs but it was not included in the revenue record. The defendants filed an objection to the trial court against the aforesaid execution request under which In 2001, the trial court accepted the request. The execution petition filed by the plaintiffs was withheld at the time of the dismissal of the plaintiffs, the trial court's year order in the appeals court accepted the appeal, and in the interest of the plaintiffs, the trial court presented the execution by a lawyer. Had withdrawn the money deposited by the plaintiffs into the bank and further added the balance amount. Thus, in accordance with the preceding injunction of the Earl of Parcels, the defendants' interest was finalized during the life of the predecessor, citing a refund of the sale consideration in the appeal memo which stated There was no room for the defendants to challenge. Plaintiff pleads guilty of order verification or execution request
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
