Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RASHID SOORTY versus ANSAR AHMAD

The Special Relief Act 1877 Section 12 suit was agreed to supply goods for export purposes by the f rst respondent for a refund of the alternative and alternative prayer for specific performance, and the quality exported according to the sample was 2,17 to the plaintiff. The claim was made by the plaintiff for the amount of damages caused by the supply of poor quality goods, and the plaintiff paid Rs 1,34,000 for the purchase of immovable property. Contracted the amount and paid Rs 1,24,000 to the claimant and promised to pay the remaining amount later by installing the settlement. A decree was passed that agreed that the property would be immovable, be transferred to the claimant by the defendant and the rest should be paid in cash, demanding the claimant execute the sale agreement several times. As the agreement was agreed but failed to do so, the plaintiff issued a glove-granting immovable property which he had promised to the plaintiff, who prayed for his specific performance. Was sold to someone else by the auctioneer after the plaintiff called for a replacement prayer and considered the sale. Or the offer. Evidence in support of his claim Evidence of the plaintiff being unauthorized and denied immigration advocate from Gilgit lawyer