Section 12 and 19 of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), the High Court's appeal for the specific performance of the Section 3 suit sale agreement agreed to the plaintiff's purchase of the property in this case and he paid substantial sums on the sale. Defendants were unable to transfer the suit property. In favor of the plaintiff, despite his plea, the plaintiff filed a specific performance claim, claiming special damages and damages against the defendant on the amount paid with 30% compensation against the defendant. A single court judge dismissed the case. Saying that relief in certain performance was an equivalent relief and that because the plaintiff failed to submit a consideration to the sale of the balance, the plaintiff was excluded from the contract for exemption from the performance of the contract, the relief for the specific performance In addition to claiming, the plaintiff claimed damages and compensation in respect of the amount paid by the plaintiff in advance, even if the failure to consider the balance sale at an early stage would amount to relief from certain performance equivalent relief. However, the plaintiff was entitled to the least damages, if any, that made certain relief Act, 1877 has proven its source under Section 19. If the court decides that certain performance should not be given by the defendant and the contract was terminated, the court may award compensation, if the plaintiff was entitled to it, the order of impeachment was set aside and the matter was adjudicated. Was taken on remand for a verdict.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
