Articles 6, 118 and 123 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XXXXI, Rr 2 and 3 did not raise objections by the defendant's defendant at the time of the final settlement suit for recovery of money based on dishonest cross-checks. The lawsuit was issued in the name of checkger Agar Corporation name. Thus, there is no litigation based on the complaint filed by \ Agar International Limited that the lawyer did not deny that in the past the defendant. The plaintiff was issuing a check to the company. gar Agar Corporation Limited / Defendant's Advisor Name It was not denied that in the past, the bill concerning Gar Agar International Limited was issued by the defendant in the name and manner of the defendant's counsel. Were. The bills and checks issued in the past were related to the plaintiff's company, therefore, the defendants now state that the checks were issued in the name of Corporation Agar and not in the name of Agar International Limited. Were. Tedbank's statement about the account shows that all the previous bills and checks issued by the defendant were in the name of Agar Corporation of India and due to insufficient funds, apart from dishonorable suit checks from the bank's specific remarks. The plaintiff requested that the plaintiff be retained. Examining the cases for a specific month and apologizing for the inconvenience in the FIR filed against the defendant under Section 489F, CRPC, the plaintiff company owed against the defendant in its audit report. Such irregular facts show that the defendant, in keeping with the business affairs, had the trial as a past practice.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
