Find a Lawyer

ABDUL REHMAN versus TASLEEM AKHTAR

A certified copy of the Document Evidence Order 1984 Arts, 73, 76 76, of 78 and document 79 has been framed as part of the Judicial Record, which will prove that it is an accurate copy of the original document. And such a fact cannot be objected to. This would not mean that the evidence required by the evidence of the law was not required to comply with the evidence when the parties were in the case, then they had to prove facts such as evidence of the law, the first appellate court of 1984 By the provisions, therefore, it was correct to observe that the document (sale contract) should have been proved by recording the record of the same preliminary evidence, proof of this is required in accordance with Arts & 78 and 79 79, the law is evidence Should have been presented in the absence of such documentation. The question did not prove that the certified copies kept on record would be considered as secondary evidence in accordance with the terms of Article 76 (g), Law E-Martyrs, 1984, therefore, could not be treated as preliminary E. The preparation of the documents, however, will meet the requirements of Article QQ, the statute and the testimony, but the evidence under Art 78 & and 79 79 had to be presented to the plaintiff when it failed to prove the original document. Failure to discharge the liability, therefore, the inquiries filed by the courts regarding the sale agreement below, will not require interference. The trial filed by the plaintiff was also barred by the plaintiff on the basis of the same principles of document proof, and even the court's orders to dismiss the plaintiff's case. patent advocate from Hattar lawyer