A XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 suit for recovery of money on the basis of the pro note, the end plaintiff filed a written statement after which the trial court adjourned the case for the evidence of the parties and the trial was adjourned. At the defendant's trial, it was admitted that he did not receive the disputed amount from the plaintiff, and also that the pro note was a forged document that did not bear his signature or thumb impressions. Were, at the trial, the trial, the court correctly accepted the request. The defendant asked for his thumbprint to note that the trial court did not, to a reasonable extent, suffer any unlawful interference or instability, interfering with the High Court's exercise of its jurisdiction. Cannot be done \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
