Suits for collection of money on the basis of the Note XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 Qunun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts 78, 79 and 84 Communications Equipment Act (XXVI of 1881), 5 118 note and Leave to compare Signatures and Thumb Impressions, Appeal of the New Defendant Prompt Note and Appeal of its Receipt in the Appeal of the Settlement Devices by Court Powers, The trial court's evidence showed the appellant's request Allowed to appear and defend, but after becoming a party, the respondents' case was decided by the appellant on appeal and recording of the evidence and recording of the evidence. The hearing and the court's order hearing that the whole matter depended on the affidavit note and the receipt, which was presented in the evidence by the defendant, the appellant claimed that he had denied his signature. On the Promotion Note and its receipt, therefore, these documents cannot be considered as negotiable instruments, that the stamps on the Promotion Note were not canceled, and the impression of the thumb was on the invoice and not the Promos note, Proof of this cannot be presented. That once the documents were signed and thumb impressions were denied, the trial court would be obliged to refer the matter to a writing expert under Article 78 of the Conan Shahadat, 1984 and She can self-compare signatures and thumb impressions and sign them once. The said documents were denied execution, there was no speculation on these documents under Section 118 of the Conversation Tool Act, 1881, and the respondent on the other hand hanged the respondent.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
