TARIQ GULZAR COTTON INDUSTRIES versus ALI ZAIB KHAN TRADERS
O VII, R 2 The suit for recovery of the money The plaintiff sued the defendant against the defendant on the issue that the defendant had neither paid the lease nor the principal amount of the loan and The bank was marked by the plaintiff. The trial court and the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim raised by the plaintiff that according to the agreement, the state departments, including electricity bills, were to pay the taxpayer's tax and the defendant was entitled to use it as well. Bank limit is available for the plaintiff with the same) shall be paid with the markup validity record that it was revealed that the factory was leased in 1998 for the defendant's contract in season 1998 and the alleged lease was one The conditions were that the obligations of the payee bank were to be terminated. However, such arguments by the plaintiff were not contradicted by the defendant before the court, which is equivalent to accepting or accepting the said period and was finalized by the plaintiff's witnesses who stated that the agreement. They were read before signing and the defendants signed the agreement. One of the defendant's witnesses acknowledged that the check was received by him and that the amount of the checks had been transferred to the defendant's account. The plaintiff's lawyer also admitted that the defendant's mortgage contained in the stock / cotton bills factory And consequently auction was considered by the bank in which the plaintiff successfully obtained the use of the lease agreement execution and financing facility by the defendant through oral and documentary evidence.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
