Notary Public Reasons Plaintiff's brother testified under section 12 law evidence (10 of 1984), prior evidence of the agreement certified by two witnesses for the specific performance of the Arts 17 and 79 suit sale agreement. There was evidence, but the plaintiff did not have such a contract in evidence, but he did not. Two witnesses could be summoned through court proceedings for proof of survival, but if it was not called a contract, it would not be used as evidence without summoning its witnesses to prove its enforceability. Through the plaintiffs, witnesses give rise to the idea that even if they are examined, they do not support it. But she failed to examine any evidence from the bank regarding the fact and the plaintiff was required to prove her case according to the relevant provisions. The law, however, failed miserably to do so, but there was no clear value to the agreement as there was no legal requirement for proof of its implementation.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
