Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAUF versus FAROOQ AHMED

A. XXXVII Laws in Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 17 (2) (a) of the Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI 1881), Section 6, 29 C & 35 Aviation Act (I of 1872) Stamp Act (II of 1899) , Section 2 ()) (b) affirming the case for recovery of money on the basis of a Pro Note Note which has not been certified by the minor witnesses, Article 17 (2) (a) of the Law Constitution, 1984 The application of the Caliphate expresses the special law referred to in Article 17 (2) (a) the law, in that testimony, 1984, the scope of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant on the basis of a pro-note, the position claimed That the respondent complied with the receipt as well as the supporting note The contract in favor of the claimant and the claimant has denied responsibility. To pay the money but his signature / thumb impression was acknowledged on the note and receipt which according to him was obtained by the plaintiffs on the blank documents The plaintiff claimed that the Qur'an evidence in the Pro Note Article 17 of 1984 Was not viewed by the two minor witnesses required under. Therefore, there is no right to recover any amount by the same trial court and under this the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the appellate court and its agreement was proved by the slightest evidence, The plaintiff acknowledged the document, its signature on the load and the thumb impression. To provide proof that he had signed and marked the blank documents with a thumbprint, the statements of the minor witnesses were not broken in numerous examinations, nor were they attributed to him for any purpose. It was made that he was making false statements, 1984, was a common law and expression that anyone jobs for fresh advocates from Allahabad lawyer