Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAUF versus FAROOQ AHMED

Sections 6, 29C and 35 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), and XXXVII Law in Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 17 (2) (a) The Evidence Act (I of 1872), the Stamp Act (II of 1899), Sec. 2 ()) (b) The case for recovery of money on the basis of a Pro Note Note which has not been certified by the minor witnesses is confirmed by Article 17 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Law, 1984 The expression of special law referred to in Article 17 (2) (a) of the law, 1984 Scope defendants filed a lawsuit against the defendants on the basis of pro-note, claiming that The defendant processed the receipt as well as the supporting note And the plaintiff has contracted in favor of the defendant although his liability has been denied. To pay the money but his signature / thumb impression was acknowledged on the note and receipt which he claimed was obtained on the blank papers by the defendant The defendant claimed that under the Article 17 of the Qur'an testimony 1984 The required two were not witnessed by the minor witnesses. Therefore, there is no right to recover any money had to be based on the same trial which was dismissed by the appellate court under the judgment of this case and its appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. ? The evidence was moved to prove that he had signed and thumb-marked the blank documents, that the statements of the minor witnesses were not broken into numerous examinations, nor were they intended to It was alleged that he was making false statements. Common law and expression, any special law, which means special law, published in Article 17 (2) (a) of the Law Sha testimony, 1984 attorney vs advocate vs counsel from FR Kohat lawyer