In section 21 (a), 42 and 56 of the law testimony (10 of 1984), a person in the suit for declaration and injunction in the section 95 suit was the plaintiff, however, not signed by that person but by someone else. As an authorized officer of the plaintiff, allegedly, such authority was not attached to the plaintiff, even a photocopy of a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favor of the said person , And the re-statement was attached to the statement. Neither certified nor certified nor verified effect could not be connected to the authenticity which was envisaged under Article 95 of the Convention of Evidence, 1984, therefore, because of this It was filed with the deception and the plaintiff was signed signing the plaintiff as a competent officer of the plaintiff company, while the documents did not specify it
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
