SYED ZAWAR HUSSAIN versus SYED RIAZUL ABBAS SHERAZI
A XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 and O XX, R 5 Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), based on section 118 check based on the institutional scrutiny of the summary suit that came to the defendant's decision by trial. It was alleged that his driver had an unknown check stolen from him, the accuracy trial court was bound to decide the matter wisely but it was not decided when this was the usual procedure. If there is a deviation, then there is the possibility of a wrong decision by the court when the case should not be re-written only on the issue of judgment. When the evidence is available, ask the plaintiff for details of the transaction / contract of sale / sale transaction. Such as the date, place and time of the contract as well as the witnesses who had the oral transaction of the sale or the contract of sale as well as the details of the property and payment made under the agreement to meet the defendant. The plaintiff did not give details of the property and money Who came to suppress his right on the basis of an oral agreement so that the other party may be able to defend the claim and the evidence of the plaintiff could not be identified and did not determine the payment for consideration. The plaintiff could not have raised any question for selling to the plaintiff and selling the transaction and presenting the defendant in the agreement. The payment for the repayment of the money was attached to the check dispute dispute device but it was refused but not in connection with the repayment of the money received by the defendant in the check but the legality of the check
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
