A. XXXVII, Rr. 2 and 3 of the Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI of 1881), Section 118 of the Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 84 of the Stamp Act (1899 of II), Schedule I, Article 5, and Section 35 of the Institution of Exchange The defendant's institution of summary suit on the dispute was that the blank checks were paid to the plaintiff for payment of the price and the agreement was written that no money was received against him at the trial. The source suit was ruled out. The agreement was mentioned in a written statement but the plaintiff denied the same document was in defendant's custody and the plaintiff had not been dealt with, such document could not be used against the plaintiff's plane. And was not required to pay stamp duty according to law. A non-judicial paper of Rs 100 was required for the writing of the agreement, the trial court said that it should enforce the document and demand the defendant submit the original duty with penalty. The evidence was not sealed, nor was the trial court adopted the procedure, nor was the defendant offered to perform his duty in accordance with the law, and the accuracy assessment was connected to the negotiating device and The defendant was obliged to say that the same defendant had failed to perform his duty. The issuance of checks and signatures was subsequently acknowledged that the trial court had properly exercised the powers of comparing signatures and handwriting of the defendants on the checks, the inquiry in connection with filling the checks was in accordance with the law of the defendants. Has failed to identify any kind of illegality or weakness in the results
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
