A. XXXVII, R 2 Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Section 28 Mini-Suit Trial Court upheld the decision by the suit appellate court and the trial court's decision maintains that it did not comply with the promise notice in its sole discretion. Rather, as an employee, the partnership firm that was actually the beneficiary of the loan, Waldetti plaintiff found herself in a position that she had advanced to the partnership firm Plaintiffs' witnesses also acknowledged that the other defendants The defendant was a separate note signed by the defendant who was an employee of the firm and was performing his duties as an employee. Yes, because the promissory note also gave birth to the firm's official rubber stamp, there is no doubt that the defendant admitted to promising his signatures on notes and receipts, but on behalf of such admissions principal / partnership firm. Were received. The plaintiff's letter head on which the plaintiffs' accounts officer and the defendant signed on as the firm's manager were sufficient to refute their claim against the plaintiff's own admissions defendant who executed any of the promise notes Did not accept / accept personal liability The courts below failed to evaluate / appreciate the evidence presented by the parties and instead ordered the defendant to be dismissed. The firm that was the original recipient of the loan and the beneficiary was affected and the decision was made to keep the cost of the situation separate \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
