Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAEEM FAROOQ versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Section 87 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), A XXXVII, R 2 Money Recovery Interpolled Pro Note Material Change, effect, data and words \ Two \ changed into twelve dependent pro note by the plaintiff. And there was a note that the defendant on the note of the pro note in relation to the change refused to execute any pro note and the fake trial court rejected the same allegation, even though the plaintiff rejected the note on the margin of the pro note. Referring to such attempts to justify such tampering. Particularly when neither the defendant's signature nor the thumbprint was present in the note, nor in words and figures, such a change was sufficient without the consent of the defendant. In the absence of proof, it is his duty to consider under the Pro Note that this change was made for the common intention of the parties pursuant to Section By87. The trial court of the Instrument of Things Act, 1881, did not commit any illegality or irregularity by concluding that the defendant had successfully proved the material issue concerning the supportive note, In the exercise of the jurisdiction of the appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court's findings on material matters. Dismiss in circumstances \ r \ n \ r \ n patent advocate from Sehwan lawyer