Section 55 Special Relief Act (of 1877), Section 12 suit for the specific performance of the contract violated defendant's contract of sale, and the essence of that agreement at the time was the essence of the suit through the validity of the trial. Ordered on, was not the essence of the time. Except for a real estate transfer agreement when the parties intend it and specifically mention that the time was the essence of the contract and mention specific date for performance and penalties for non-performance automatically. The time was not made because the essence of the contract must be the intention of the parties, as the essence of the contract is specifically mentioned in the terms of the time-making agreement. In the present case there was no such intention in the contract. Was willing to perform the part of the contract, suit was filed nine days after the cut off date and every detail There was no need to mention in the evidence presented which proved that the evidence of each would be presented. A photocopy of every required detail legal notice was provided in the defendant's lawyer's statement which did not prove that the defendant The suit is obliged to hand over the land before the date for the execution of the contract. The defendants failed to perform their part of the agreement, the suit was rightly ordered that no interference case was presented by the High Court and the circumstances were dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
