Sections 115 and 12 (2) of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), Section 12 of the Contempt of Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 58 Review petitioner has filed a petition against the defendants that has been filed by the respondent. In the first case, a child order was issued in which his lawyer appeared and accepted the case and recorded the promise that the applicant would transfer the property to the defendant upon his return from abroad. The court recorded the statement and observed that the defendant (ie, the applicant) would abide by the said promise and would be dismissed. As a signatory, the defendant accordingly prayed that the said statement and order was illegal and void and the case was prosecuted. The preliminary objection was taken to the effect that in view of section 12 (2), CPC The trial was banned. The specific statement was filed (by an attorney) which was pending petitioner's position because there was no word on fraud, incrimination or misrepresentation in the plaint but it could not be used. The claim could not be excluded that it was stated that the applicant expressed his dissatisfaction with his lawyer's conduct which resulted in the recording of the proceedings and the order, so the applicant admitted on the question of the court that the lawyer The statement was fraudulent and had orders to collectively impact, they would be approved with jurisdiction. It was, however, held that the suit against the applicant for specific performance based on the lawyer's statement was not sufficient that the applicant could perform very well. The same in the above case
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
