A. XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877). I paid the balance. An amount of Rs 15,25,000 for the purchase of the disputed property and an additional amount of Rs 4 lakh thereafter, the defendant then claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to pay the balance despite receiving the legal notice. Was unsuccessful, and the summary of the agreement was that the trial court granted an interim injunction to sell to the plaintiff. Both parties accepted the agreement and the defendant did not deny the receipt of a transaction. Whether or not the essence of the contract required deep scrutiny could only happen. The prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff should be made after the evidence has been registered, in which case the defendant was not barred from suing ProPay during the course of the trial. The possibility of being multifunctional cannot be ruled out. The High Court, with clarification, dismissed the first appeal to the extent that the observations made in the High Court order were only temporary and should not affect the merits of the case.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
