MST. AKHTAR BEGUM versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Reported forensic science laboratory suit filed by the bank, setting aside Section 9 Convention Evidence (10 of 1984), section 59 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), decree, section 12 (2), fraud and misrepresentation. The judgment was pronounced against the applicant in the petition. The petitioner, who guaranteed it, emphasized the decision and the decree that he did not sign any document in favor of the bank, including the mortgage pledge and the General Power of Attorney. In order to get their opinion as a signatory expert must sign the petition referred to was a written request from the applicant or was forged or forged by someone else not in this important aspect of the case. Not only did the banking court's attention escape, but the high court did not take notice of it, making it obligatory for anyone to pay. Cannot be set. Or she was not otherwise legally obligated to pay but was pressured and forced to pay on some forgery or compromise, the TED documents, the permanent settlement of her signature on the mortgage process. In view of the strong and strong denial, the Power of Attorney, etc., compared the denied signatures with their signed signatures, and was compared to prevent this comparison by a controversial writing expert. The documents had applicant's signature. The apex court has also directed that the proceedings against the applicant be taken after receiving the report of the handwriting expert through the relevant banking court.
