Find a Lawyer

AAMAR TUFAIL versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ

A. XXXVII, Rr. 1 and 2 negotiable instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), section 4 law and evidence of the recovery of evidence (Arts 10 and 1984), notes on the promise of two witnesses' non-confirmation. The trial note for the recovery of the case was rejected by the trial court because the two witnesses were not presented to present evidence that their evidence was proof that its maker had violated the Negusable Instruments Act. , Has promised to pay the amount received under 1881, if they need some confirmation, the instrument ie promise note will become a bond. No need to confirm the witnesses in the promissory note. I was not the law 17 index 1984 1984 of 1984 Article was put under 17, which was a common law, and was fatal to present to the minimum non-presence of two witnesses. Even in the evidence, this admissible trial court was not correct in dismissing the contentious pro note either to substantiate witnesses in accordance with Article 17 of the Law Evidence, 1984. Or for the evidence to require the absence of two witnesses, as required by Art 79, the Sha Shaheedat, 1984 decision and the order passed by the trial court were set aside and the trial court Was remanded to. immigration advocates phone number from Pasni lawyer