The defendant has been charged with refusing to enforce such an agreement for the specific performance of the Article 12 Law of Evidence (Article 10 of 1984), Article 59 suit for sale because he is manipulated / forged. On the impression of the thumb was obtained by fraudulent excuse to borrow from one. The report of the finance corporation handwriting expert and his statement as a court witness, showing that two such typewriters were used in such an agreement, with the plaintiff gaining numerous opportunities from the handwriting expert. Did not exceed, if the use of two different typewriters was required, the plaintiff had to say in proof or at some other stage in the evidence that the plaintiff had not inspected the person who had two different typewriters. This type of contract was typed on the suit because it was rejected because the sales contract was fake and manipulated. Was
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
