PAK SUZUKI MOTOR CO. LTD. versus MUHAMMAD JUMSHAD SAEED
A. VIII, R2 Law In this evidence (1079 1984), the plaintiff was the dealer of the plaintiff's company to prove the recovery of the money from Arts 117 and 120 and the payment was defaulted on which the plaintiff's company recovered the money from the plaintiff. In order to remove the burden of proof that the defendant sued, the plaintiff showed that he had provided the defendant with the goods on the defendant and that the defendant had failed to pay against the same plaintiff from which it appeared. It is likely that the defendants were provided with goods which failed to settle the accounts offered The dealership agreement, the computerized statement of the account, the various seals Cross examination of Ace, delivery invoice, balance verification and dishonesty with Memorandum Bank neither examined the plaintiff's witness nor presented any evidence of dishonesty checks issued by the defendant. That he was responsible for paying the plaintiff, thus the plaintiff had proved his case and was entitled to the relief sought for the suit.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
