Sections 12, 22 and 54 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), section 55 suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction as the essence of the contract do not preclude the execution of the contract of sale by the seller / defendant. But at that time it was requested that the essence of the agreement was and that the contract was declared ineffective due to the passage of time and that it was unable to be enforced by the trial court. The appeal filed against the dismissal and dismissal order was also dismissed by the appellate court, and the plaintiff / seller filed another appeal. The plaintiff / seller of the settlement had accepted a large amount of money and it was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid by the parties on the date of settlement of the agreement, unless the contract was executed. In the case of the plaintiff / shopkeeper the amount will be forfeited and the parties to the contract were to execute their part of the contract within a reasonable time, with the execution of the contract only. It is clear that the treaty used under section 22 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, cannot be treated at this time, it should never be arbitrary and where it is found that Suter does not make a mistake. This is why discretion cannot be implemented. There was no evidence available on record of the unsecured character to cancel the plaintiff's claims for loss of the plaintiff. The defendant must give notice to the plaintiff under section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872, but the sale agreement, the essence agreement. Concerning the above, any notice which has been issued with the above mentioned imperative implications shall be that the parties' intention is at the appropriate time and time.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
