Section 118 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), A XXXXI The Scope Suit for Receiving Debt Amount as a Debt-Based Instrument, Conducts Leave Approval and Trial for Defendants Subsequently, the trial court's suit was not filed within the defendant's due date. In this case and in the evidence about the promise of a refund, he expressed his incompetence on account of his illness and his illness, was not established by independent evidence. No written agreement was presented on the record or the accused was not charged for the execution of the parties, and it is impossible, despite the relationship, that such money will be paid by the claimant on the basis of mutual trust only. No date, month and even year of lending was given in Medina. However, it was vaguely mentioned that this was the time when the claimant of the mill was in the mill creation process. The plaintiff in his cross-examination stated that the Mill of Defendants started operating in 1997 when his witness stated that the money was paid in two installments namely 4 4 1999 and 25 4 1999 This means that it was after the establishment of the mill, thus a serious reflection of the purpose and purpose of the loan. Defendant's testimony was not subjected to cross-examination by the plaintiff due to the dates of the defendant's stay and the loss of the mill, which would be admitted, considering the execution and check. Was denied; the plaintiff's ability to pay was facing a challenge, but he was unable to establish that in 1998, he had no right to defendant.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
