Find a Lawyer

ANEES A. SHEIKH versus COL. (RETD.) GHULAM MASOOD QURESHI

A XXXVII, Rr 3 & 4 Convene Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 31 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) suits for recovery of loan amount on the basis of security checks Maintained. The plaintiff's appellate court held that the plaintiff had acknowledged his son's signature on the receipts, under which his son was paid a sum of Rs. Was able to deduct, the signature of the Waldetti plaintiff was sufficient to admit the extent to which he had stated that the defendant had obtained the blank paper, which was later related to wheat and cotton. , The money provided by the defendant's cross-examination of the defendant revealed that the plaintiff had been supplying wheat in addition to the loan amount. And Cotton acknowledged the plaintiff's payment of more than Rs 26,00,000 to the plaintiff in his evidence, concluding that in addition to the loan transaction, there were business matters for the parties and the payments. The plaintiff satisfactorily explained his admission of his son's signature on the basis of the facts recorded by the courts below, that the evidence was accurate, comprehensive and carefully considered that the court dismissed the petition. And refused to appeal the circumstances. divorce advocates from Malakwal lawyer