A. XXXVII, Plaintiff sued for recovery of debt on the basis of promise vacancy / receipt, claiming that the three defendants who were among the brothers had taken the loan through payment note / receipt so that it could be repaid to the claimant. Was inconsistent with the content of the plaintiff and did not impose any responsibility on the two defendants as the plaintiff did not testify at any time that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were present by him. When the suit money was presented through a loan, two marginal witnesses dismissed that all three defendants were present and that the promise note / receipt was implemented in their presence, while the plaintiff placed high on defendants Nos. 2 and 3. He did not claim to be a debt of the rank and he did not agree that there were two defendants when the controversial transaction took place.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
