Find a Lawyer

SYED TAJUDDIN versus AFZAL HABIB

A. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 and 3 of the Stamp Act (II of 1899), Sections 12, 35 and 36 of the Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI 1868), Section 4 of the Law on Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 102 of the suit. The promissory note for the receipt of the money, affecting the canceled stamp primary note on the basis of the case on which the case was filed was not substantially sealed and some of the stamps appearing on the promissory note were appropriate. It was not canceled in the sense that the purpose of postponement of the stamp was that it cannot be used. Again the promissory note, if it was not legally sealed, was unacceptable and it was stated that the defect cannot be fixed by payment of defect and penalty. No evidence was recorded and the promise in question was not demonstrated vacuum and was presented to the court on the same instruction as the preparation of the document during the evidence cannot be equated with the court as per the pro note. Was claimed to be inadmissible in evidence because it did not have the appropriate seal, so the plaintiff can return to Orie. In fact, the consideration and claim, on the basis that the plaintiff in a dispute for money said that the defendant was paid as a loan and was told that the defendant of the loan executed the promise notice. And gave the same plaintiffs' promissory note as the present cases, Canaan Evidence 1984 does not cover all the terms of the agreement, such as section 102 and section 35 of the Stamp Act 189, to file a lawsuit for recovery of debt by the plaintiff. Will be obstructed by the accused. The law court had ordered that the holy online advocate from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer