A. XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 The Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI of 1881), on the basis of section 118 suit warfare, the defendant claimed that he was in judicial custody and had not issued a check confirming the trial. The suit was dismissed by The assumption was attached to the communication device and burden the defendants to prove the contrary the check was issued from the defendant's checkbook The defendant did not deny his signature on the check mentioned above. There was no evidence submitted that he did not issue the check, nor did he sign the check, which he did not issue the check would not be enough. Was presented before but was bounced due to insufficient funds, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount mentioned in the probe's investigation. That is, the trial court erred in examining the evidence in its original context, the trial and the trial decision were unknown on the one hand and the plaintiff's case was ordered The appeal was accepted in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
