Find a Lawyer

HAJI MUHAMMAD WARIS versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT

O IX, R 8, O XVII, Rr 2, 3 and O XXXVII Stamp Act (II of 1899), Section 2 (22) Summary of Procurement Non-Production of Proof of Security Procurement Without Reaction Procurement Closing and Appeal On the same day upon expulsion, the plaintiff filed a case for recovery of money on the basis of the pro note. On the failure of the plaintiff to produce evidence, the trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff and consequently closed the evidence of the plaintiff. And instead of dismissing the case under O XVII, R 3, the trial was excluded. The CPC was only to remove the suit as per the requirement of OXVII. R 2 read with O IX, R 8, CPC law upheld the decision on eligibility and discouraged no party from merely meriting technical competence. The defendant expressly acknowledged the implementation of the Pro Note but insisted that the Pro Note was also implemented as security without its implementation. Because security had to be considered unless proven otherwise criminal advocate from Khangarh lawyer