On the basis of the pro note and receipt under A. XXXVII, ORVI 1 & 2, the RR 1 & 2 suit, the CPC trial court, dismissed the claim that it did not take any money from the plaintiff and that he was an illiterate and old man, weak. The defendant's further claim was that in fact the plaintiff and his son were defaulters of a bank and that in filing an application to revoke the previous injunction, the plaintiff cheated on his thumb to stop the impression. No consideration was paid and the witnesses appeared to have denied that the defendant refused to receive any consideration, the defendant's age was a simple one in the village. The Ai and the plaintiff's son was not the plaintiff witnesses reliable and credible had defaulted bank because he was a witness accused him of those not involved in the criminal case against him when it proved that he was a suspect. A simple villager was tricked into giving the impression of a thumb when he was not discharged by the plaintiff on the evidence that no witness was present High r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
