S. ABDUL MANNAN MUTTAQI versus DEFENSE HOUSE AUTHORITY
A. VII, R 11 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 21, 42 and 12 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), sections 13, 25 and 29 of the suit dismissed the plaintiff's object and scope for certain performance. The specific performance of the contract demanded that upon receipt of the token it was stated that the receipt of the token was unlawful, the name of the witness was stated but his signature was missing and the check was issued conditionally on the token amount and in The amount mentioned was not received by the respondent's consent decree and the token receipt documents were acknowledged, which can also be processed. To consider the purpose of transferring any amount from the plaintiff to any of the co-owners / defendants under section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872, unless they are listed in writing under Section 29 of the Contract Act. And is not subject to the Contract Act. , The 1872 Treaty, meaning of which something was uncertain or unable to be made, was terminated, therefore, withheld under section 25. And 29 of the Contract Act, 1872, which alone was authorized to sell the suit property, did not consent to the alleged sale under section 13 of the Contract Act, 1872, when it was said to have agreed In the same case, the suit was also banned under section 13 of the Contract Act, 1872, in which case the plaintiff never obtained any valid title or suit in the suit property under section 42 of the Special Relief Act, 1877 In the event of any event provided, in which case A VII, R 11, the CPC court was not only empowered to dismiss the plaintiff, The source was that O VII, from the R 11 party object
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
