MESSRS RAVI ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PROVINCIAL CHIEF
Sections 9 and 10 of the Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 133 denial of the court's dismissal of the leave application for dismissal, for the defendant to examine the defendant's testimony and to admit the documents presented in the evidence. Dependency to object Partial evidence based on such cases could not be legally considered to the defendant for the remainder of the proceedings in the case, after the leave application was dismissed, the defendant could not file a written statement And he was barred from presenting his own testimony, but he was entitled to cross-examine the defendant's witnesses. The Knocking Court, on its own, had allowed the defendant to examine the plaintiff's testimony and to object to the admissibility and enforcement of the documents proposed by the plaintiff, making the unreasonable decision of serious legal error. The High Court accepted the appeal and set aside. After hearing the judgment / decree with the plaintiff asking the plaintiff to instruct the Banking Court to re-issue the decision, he should provide evidence in support of his claim and provide the plaintiff with a reasonable opportunity to examine the witnesses and, if so, by the plaintiff. When presented, raise the objection to the authenticity and authenticity of the documents. However, if the defendant fails to seek leave to defend, the defendant will not be allowed to present evidence or produce any document
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
