PERVEZ IQBAL versus MRS. RANA/NADIA IQBAL SIDDIQUI
Section 12 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 186 Defense Housing Authority Claiming for the specific performance of a suit property sale agreement in the plaintiff claimed that the contract and recovery of the dues were signed by the defendant's lawyer. Which they did not enter. Such an agreement with the plaintiff has neither received any money from it nor authorized anyone to sell the suit property, and such receipt was not binding on him that he had admitted the evidence to the plaintiff in cross examination. Was that he had never met the defendant. That he did not have the documentary evidence to show that the defendant had authorized the sale of the suit property to anyone. The plaintiff has voluntarily stated that he has spoken to the defendant over the telephone, but the evidence does not state the plaintiff's statement or affidavit if the sale of the suit is for the defendant to be the defendant's lawyer. It is worth mentioning that, even before going into negotiations to buy it, the clever person must first have seen the relevant documents in which the alleged lawyer was referred by the plaintiff as no witness was examined. As such, the notion that it has been inspected will have been dismissed against the plaintiff's interest. Such receipt was issued by the alleged solicitor and he did not hold the plaintiff's signature in cross-examination; he acknowledged that he did not pay directly to the defendant; The appropriate lawyer was not appointed. Thus, any receipt issued by it will not be binding on the defendant even though the sale is subject to change.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
