A. XXXVII, Application for defense of leave to petition for collection of dishonest check money Request for defense of leave Although mentioned that the check was never issued by the defendants, but the bank The memorandum under which the check was returned on two occasions showed that the funds were not sufficient and that there was no difference in the signature of the drawers. The only plausible and logical conclusion that could be drawn was that the plaintiff. This check was issued under valid signatures by which the amount under consideration was being discussed. This check or self-check does not give the defendants the right to leave. Because, under the effect of OXVIII, the CPC had to stop the trial proceedings from being properly completed by the plaintiff in order to be effectively treated by the plaintiff and did not require long commercial litigation. ? Because of the partnership and its dissolution, admission was also made. And the fact is that the check was dishonored for the sake of obtaining proper funds and not because of the forgery of the defendants' signatures. There was no proper dispute proceeding, the application for defense of the case was dismissed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was rejected with interest. Conditions \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
