Article 13 Legal Evidence (10 of 1984) Article 78 Bank's Tenant Withdrawal By the Bank, filing a withdrawal proceeding against the tenant because this is not the case in the daily routine business of the bank branch and if it There is no objection to such a case. The eligibility of the bank officer was raised, which initiated the eviction against a bank tenant; the burden was on the bank that the withdrawal process was authorized by the bank. If the burden was not excluded, then in the present case, the examination of the statement of the person who initiated the eviction request did not show that he was liable for filing an action against a tenant. Authorization was given by the bank. He did not present the original documents in this regard, so as to verify the validity of the permit request by the tenant's lawyer, he did not even mention that the person who was legally authorized in the bank Was requested to enter. Neither he nor the attorney referred to any of the executing authority in his favor for that reason, but such documents could not be shown in the bank lawyer's statement but required that the person Be tendered in the statement of where it is proceeding. The court also had to determine admissibility and relevance, after giving the witness tenant the opportunity to examine it to the extent that it was condemned to be heard because all such exercises were done in his previous rent controller. Were done illegally, from continuing the documents
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
