Section 4 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXXVII, Rr 1, 2 and Section 9 Maintenance of Promise Note for the Receipt of Promise Notes under the Scope \ Promissory Note \ and \ Contract \ Discrimination Not to mention O XXXVII, Rr 1 and 2 CPC but the office object was retained by the judge in the High Court chambers and the summary was declared not to be retained under the jurisdiction even if there was a device / promise note. Whether or not they should be judged by the words used. Depending on the circumstances and wording in each case, whether a document was a promise note or a contract, one of the tests intended to find out was the other test, whether the document was considered negotiable. It could be said, that a third person could sue the power of this document, if he could not, then it was merely an agreement. In the alleged note promise note, the payment amount was not specified, E, there was no acknowledgment of responsibility, so the promise was not the central point of the caliphate that it was a device on which another The Ray Promissory Note was to be paid and the amount would have to be stated as payment. This and any other device that did not specify the exact amount was a promise note. An order passed by a judge in the High Court chamber requires interference because the plaintiff's case should be considered a lengthy trial and the general jurisdiction will be appealed under the CPC's appeal. Dismiss accordingly \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
