A. XXXVII, R 2 Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI 1881), Section 4 Recovery Suit Promissory Note \ Compulsory Trial Trial Court asserts that the promise gap was implemented by them and for payment. No, therefore, according to the accounts and suit under A. XXXVI on matters relating to the matter, the CPC was not credible. In order for a document to become a promotional note, four conditions were necessary, namely, an unconditional step for payment. The aking should ensure the amount of money. Payments, or by order of a particular person, or the pick-up and maker of the device, should sign the defendant's document stating that they did not receive the cash so the promise / note in question was not a valid document and it Was not correct that the promissory note was a promise to pay only a certain amount of time, under the question that the promissory note was a valid \ promissory note, on the basis of which the statement under Section 4 of the Communications Equipment Act, 1881 was done. Acknowledged receiving the stock and was unable to identify any wrongdoing in an unclear judgment or misrepresentation of evidence from the same defendant's partial payment of circumstances r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
