Find a Lawyer

AKHTAR ASLAM versus MUJAHIDA AFZAL

For the specific performance of the Special Relief Act 1877 Section 12 and 22 suit agreement, the vendor / defendant claimed that the market value of the property in dispute at this time is much higher than the default but It did not exclude pricing. At the time of the agreement between the parties, the vendor / defendant also did not state in the written statement that the value of the property fixed in the sale agreement does not correspond to the value of any property at the relevant time or otherwise. There was no reason to deny the specific performance of the contract for the sole reason that no justification was available to a party to relieve him of the obligation, although the court has been empowered despite section 22 of the Act 1877 To deny the specific performance of the contract in labor matters. , But the hardship contemplated by section 22 was of a nature that could not be assessed by the parties at the time of Egger. No element was brought to the record or its existence was disclosed, the suit was rightly ordered. Was given immigration advocates contact from Chakwal lawyer