OI, R10 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 12 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Suits for Specific Performance of Contract to Sell Intra Court of Appeals Went and was filed by the appellant In the year 2008, for the party to enforce, the appellant had to take care that he occupied the suit property, while the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the affidavit and in the suit property had it. OI, R 10, the CPC court, considering the plea under it for the deprivation of its valuable rights, the strange facts of every case Had to be considered carefully and after being satisfied that an applicant had submitted a case for execution as a party, either as a plaintiff or a defendant, there could be a case. Could approve the necessary orders by granting or denying such a request, resulting in a written statement, in which he accused the plaintiff of forging his signature to the Division Bench of the High Court, on the occasion. , They denied any observation that there was any element of collusion or collusion between the defendant and the defendant, as alleged by the appellants and that nothing had happened. The record was brought to support such an allegation so that the single judge did not face any facts or legal wrongs in rejecting the appellant's request, the single judge taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case division. It used proper discretion. The bench refuses to interfere with the order passed by the single judge intra-court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
