Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

UMAR DRAZ versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD


A XXXVII, RR I & 2 Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI of 1881), was allowed to appear and defend Section 4 suit for collection of pro-note money, the trial court granted the suit. Decided whether the promissory note has not been confirmed? By two witnesses, the evidence was inadmissible provided negotiable provisions of Section 4 of the Equipment Act, 1881, were not required to validate the promissory note if a witness did not require certification. In the present case, the document was in print form along with the receipt and pro note and it was processed, and the receipt was confirmed by two witnesses, both witnesses were examined and insulted in the arrangement of cross examination. Nothing was found which contained a controversial pro note and receipt, and its implementation met the criteria which the High Court dismissed on appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
divorce advocates from Mamu kunjan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.