Sections 8, 39 and 42 were announced earlier under the settlement agreement for the specific performance of the suit agreement for the cancellation and occupation of the sale, however, in favor of another party with fraud. The plaintiff sued the third party through the declaration, the defendants, to postpone the sale and to recover the possession of the suit, for a substantial part of the land. The case was pronounced by the court, and the appellate court upheld the judgment and decision under which the trial was not heard by the appellate court. Defendants, who did not have a case for eligibility, took refuge behind the technicalities, and no one will be allowed to retain the defendants who exploited them. Was involved in facilitating the collective transfer of the land and did not take the slightest idea to find out whether the shopkeeper was the owner of the land or not, both the courts have examined both the facts and the questions of law together. In the limited amended jurisdiction, the High Court did not need to interfere with the investigation of evidence and matters relating to the proper application of the law, nor to interfere with the search of any lower forum on which it was based.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
