Section 4 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 126 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), O XXXVII, R1 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), false label of section 3 infra court document misrepresentation document, unexpected promise The notice the plaintiff sought to recover was to note the prom promise of money on the basis of two letters against the defendants based on the same claimant letter, which was an unconditional action in question in the valid letter, which is to be paid. The amount of money that was sure. A payment that was to be made to a person. And a signature from the executive, therefore, the letter fulfills all the requirements of a promissory note; failure to stamp the promissory note will not exclude it from being applicable. The effect of this on a respondent's liability was not fully appreciated by the other plaintiff at that time the plaintiff should not refuse to ask for the receipt of money because the letter, in writing, It was called bail, a promise note, a charge or some other name, proof that through correspondence, the plaintiff's high The defendant's obligation to pay the plaintiff in T was that the appellant refused to allow the executor of the letter his obligation to pay the plaintiff under the letter simply because That the plaintiff was indirectly labeled on the basis of his misunderstanding and demand was made on the letter of the letter, but at that time the plaintiff's intention to file the case with the executive was clear. The decision was put aside and declared that the letter was a promise
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
