Section 118 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXXVII, RR 2 and 3 Laws in Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 84 Stamp Act (II of 1899), Article 5, Schedule I and Section 35 of the Institution The defendant's institution of summary suit on the instrument was of the view that the blank checks were paid to the plaintiff for payment of the price and the agreement stated that there was no money against it, the suit was passed by the trial court, A written statement about the valid contract was mentioned but the plaintiff denied that the document was in the custody of the defendant and was not confronted by the plaintiff. This plaintiff could not be used against the contract was on the plane paper and was not paid stamp duty according to the law. The non-judicial paper of Rs 100 was required to write the contract on the device, the trial court said, that it should enforce the document and demand the defendant to submit the original duty with a fine instrument which was not illegal. Sealing the evidence was unacceptable. The trial court did not adopt the procedure, nor was the defendant offered to perform his duty in accordance with the law. The accuracy assessment was attached to the negotiating device and the defendant The defendant was obliged to issue his duty. After scrutiny and signatures it was conceded that the trial court had exercised the right to compare signatures and handwriting of the defendant to the checks, the inquiry in connection with filling the checks was in accordance with the law, Any type of illegal or weakening of the results entered by the defendant
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
