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
power of attorney advocate Khuzdar lawyer
