Section 12, IX of 1872, sections 2, 73 and 74 suit for the breach of contract for the specific performance of the suit contract the plaintiff agreed on behalf of the plaintiff in executing an agreement in favor of the plaintiff. The amount should be paid up to the due date and the plaintiff will pay double the amount of the plaintiff, easily paying the amount by the due date. The matter was that the terms of the agreement were not complied with by the defendant. The plaintiff's double amount was that he was acting under the command of the plaintiff, he was subjected to unreasonable influence and forced Services instrument / agreement was signed plaintiff claimed that he had signed when he was not working as independent manual. Document verification did not appear on the instrument of the claimant to accept any formal liability of any kind, if there is a provision of section of any of the Contracting Act, the only rights to be obtained by the party As well as the agreement, reasonable compensation and the absence of a contract, the mere fact that the defendant did not pay the amount within the time limit set by the plaintiff claimed to attract the provisions of the authorized clause and to pay the fine. Make the right to do, in fact the penalty for claiming double money was not applicable law, the court was not obligated to agree And what was the nature of the contents of the agreement. Parties and what happened when the courts did not consider this aspect and recorded their results against the material available on the record of section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, and the damages as a contract
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
