A XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 suit for recovery of the note based on the promissory note, the suit filed by the plaintiff was ruled by the trial court that the mark of the vacancy promised by the defendant was not on the thumb and this promise. It was without a vacuum to be considered valid so that there was no defendant in the record that the defendant did not affix his thumb to the promise and the denial was limited to only the signatures, which were the first appeals before the High Court. I had no problem, the thumbprint was affixed. On the Prompt Caliphate, the Defendant was not denied, either in a written statement or by the witnesses' counsel for the Defendant that the Promise Caliphate had no idea, in itself, as destructive. According to the statement, the defendant himself confessed to his execution. The entire defense raised by the promissory note defense tooth, the defendant standing in the circumstances, offered evidence to prove his case, the witnesses presented there endured a cross-examination examination of his On the contrary, the evidence presented by the defendant was weak and lacked confidence and lacked quality and lack of judgment and decree. The appeal should be interfered with by the High Court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
