Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE KHAN versus MUMTAZ AHMAD

The Special Relief Act 1877 Sections 12 and 35 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OXI, RR 10 and 34 suits, did not go beyond the conduct of both parties to the agreement as they were striving. Violating the promise made to the vendor / promoter even after initially receiving the vendor-related money from the vendor and occupying the suit land on the gift-gifted suit land. Go beyond one another to the specific performance of the contract against the vendors, which was decided in favor of the seller on the statement of the parties' advice, on the other hand, the vendor approved the challenge consent in his favor and, for a long time, in the matter The delay was given to Wendy by the High Court for six months. For the remainder of the sale price and the completion of the sale, but instead of acting promptly, he wasted more than five months and only 24 days before the vendor deadline, meanwhile, the fake court, in lieu of that oath In filing the petition, he filed an appeal against the High Court order, which has six months to complete the sale. When the shopkeeper was asked to bring a draft sale deadline in conjunction with the stamp papers, he began discharging his obligations and due to lack of time, expressed his inability to comply with Wendy's order, thus reducing the funds. Was probably not very sincere. Looking at valuable property, he was trying to steal another march. In a situation where the seller is unwilling to refund the vendor periodically, the only proper way is to complete the sale transaction. top advocate from Hangu lawyer