Find a Lawyer

ALI MUHAMMAD SHAH versus IJAZ HUSSAIN

A. XXXVII, Rr 1, 3 Conversation Tool Act (XXXVI of 1881), Section 120 Qunun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts 17 (2) and 59 Money Recovery Promotional Note Evidence Written by Two Minor Witnesses Expert's failure to decide the miscellaneous application filed by the plaintiff, the trial court dismissed on the ground that the trial court did not adjudicate the petitions related to the disputed signatures by the trial court. Promising that the two witnesses did not enter the foregoing note. The minor witness testimony for this case was fatal to the point where a general document was to be proved as a contract to sell. According to the Conversation, under Section 120 of the Conversation Tool Act 1881, the promise was assumed to be truthful. The mere absence of a mere minor witness was not fatal, especially when the writing, the affidavit, and a minor witness entered the witness box, the supporter of his truthful trial court made the wrong conclusion that a marginal witness. Failure to examine the provisions of Article 17 (2) of the Convention of Evidence was defeated; the 1984 promotional note was signed by two minor witnesses, which met the requirement of section 17 (2). The law was evidence 1984 1984 plaintiff could not proceed to deliver a final decision without deciding the pending trial. The High Court directed the trial court to decide on the pending petition of the plaintiff to cite the controversial signatures for the inspection of the handwriting expert and then decide on the matter. Based on the available evidence and the opinion of the handwriting expert, if any jobs for fresh advocates from Jatoi lawyer