Find a Lawyer

ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO. LTD., KARACHI versus PANAGHIA ODIGITRIA

Admiralty jurisdiction of the Ordinance of the High Courts 1980 Clause 3 law of 1980 (10 of 1984); To prove that the plaintiff was spent on the plaintiff and the details provided. The material shown was on the plaintiff, the defendant denied the same plaintiff that he had failed to produce the original bills and vouchers, rather than photocopying the bills and vouchers, the plaintiff had neither It was alleged that the documents were lost or that they had not examined any witnesses. Similarly, there was no satisfactory evidence of actual damage, so the defendants who challenged the photostat copies; therefore, no case was made for the secondary evidence, and the photostat copies were not admissible in evidence. The bills were signed and the evidence was not checked The plaintiff also did not submit his account books to confirm the accuracy. His claim in the plaintiffs failed to establish the payments made by the defendants. famous supreme court advocate from Umer Kot lawyer