Find a Lawyer

MASOOD ANWAR versus SABIR KHAN

A. XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 Stamp Act (II of 1899), Section 5 Suit to Defend the Suit for Receipt of Money on the basis of the Privilege Note Difficulty Seal Document Effect Suite Filed on The defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 45. The plaintiff executed a demand primaries note for the plaintiff, 000, 000, and the said value defendant, which was allowed to defend the written statement of the suit, in which it executed and sued the defendant. Refused to receive money Evidence not admissible under section 5 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the marginal witnesses stated that the promise note presented by the plaintiff was examined by the defendant at length, but stated that the statement of the two witnesses was close. It was like this, completing the claim of the plaintiff that the witnesses agreed. Tips for payment of suit money by the plaintiff; the execution of the promise note; their signature on the instrument as a minor witness and the confirmation of the promissory note by the defendant through a notary public excuse cross examination. According to the two witnesses, they could not produce any material contradiction or contradiction succeeded in proving the plaintiff plaintiff in executing the promissory note in the case and the fact of changing the money between the defendant and the defendant in the trial. To the extent of the testimony of the disbelievers on account of the contradictions, they were unable to make provision, between payment of stamp duty. There was no question. In this case the parties, but it was between the state / government and the party that was supposed to use malicious documents, the trial court could at any time seek to meet the deficiency. famous supreme court advocate from Toru lawyer