Section 12 (2) of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), section 12 and specific performance suit of a contract to sell a contract obtained without the knowledge of the property owner, section 12 (2), Under CPC, filing a limitation claimant. The defendant filed a specific performance claim against the defendant in connection with the oral agreement of the seller, saying that he had no attachment to the disputed property and that the applicant was the original owner of the property, which was enforced as a party. Should be done The trial court pronounced the defendant's decision in spite of such objections. Upon learning of the order later, the applicant filed an application under section 12 (2), the CPC dismissed the petition to exclude the same appellate court which stated that the defendant's legality. I had made a clear stand and object to the application being dismissed that the disputed property was not the property of the applicant, but should be implemented. d As a party to the case, the parties also made a special case in the light of such objections, but nevertheless, such a case was not taken care of in passing the decree, but where the fraud. And the gathering was charged. The applicant in his application under section 12 (2), CPC, then the lower courts should compile the case, collect the evidence and then the matter was decided under section 12 (2), the petition. The summary of the CPC filed by the petitioner could not be decided because the applicant had raised fraud and fraud.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
