Find a Lawyer

AHMED HASSAN KHAN versus NAVEED ABBAS

The Conan e-Testimony Order 1984 Section 12 Law Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 84 suit for sale agreement on the basis of the sale agreement and consideration payment was not proved by the plaintiff, the trial court and the High Court affirmed. The cases were rightly ruled out which could indicate that. Don't worry, the defendants claim that the lawsuit filed for the defendant's possession is still pending, so, their appeal was not guaranteed, it could not be entertained. Because the plaintiff requested the High Court to settle both the appeals together. There was sufficient material in the record record to prove the facts that the defendants had agreed to sell the property in question, there was no consequence of their failure to present a sale agreement, the defendant allegedly paid a certain sum. The receipt was completely relied upon, indicating that only one had signed it. The plaintiff tried to prove the receipt in question by presenting two witnesses, but the courts justified the comparison of the signatures of the receipt with the defendant's approved signatures, indicating that they were not signed by the same person. There are other surprising similarities in spelling, etc. The harmony of the following two courts shows that the evidence is consistent with the evidence on record. The appeal was allowed in the circumstances denied. famous high court advocate from Hangu lawyer