GHULAM NAZAK versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER
Section 9 Bankers' Box Aviation Act (XVIII of 1891), the Section 4 case was on the bank to refuse to refuse to borrow from bank-proof ounces by the plaintiff to prove that the disputed debt was presented to the plaintiff. The bank did not submit the plaintiff's original request for financing. Documents of approval, letter of approval, finance contract, loan repayment or financing of any document were also not kept on record, none of the certified documents prepared by the bank related to any other loan account. There will be no identification price in which the allegedly secured financing of the mortgage was not presented in evidence The bank did not plead that the alleged money was withdrawn by the claimant, the claimant had to pay In the absence of record, the burden of controversial debt cannot be put. The bank failed to prove that the original record was incorrect. It would not be sufficient to prove the record's loss to the witnesses of the bank. The F record did not report to its Regional Manager, nor did the FIR Bank report the secondary. The court did not seek permission to present evidence, evidence of lack of record could not be found, therefore, the secondary evidence, if anyone's guidance, would be useless, the bank did not prove the bank obtained the alleged loan suit. Which was against the bank under the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
