Find a Lawyer

HAFIZ-UL-HAQ versus ABDUL MASTAN

In the case of the defendants, the burden of Arts 30 and 118 to prove the weakness of the plaintiff's claim of admission to the claim section was through the checks but it was claimed that the plaintiff owed the amount which he owed them. It was paid through checks but on the basis of checks acknowledged the receipt of money, the plaintiff's initial burden was not denied to prove that the money in question was advanced by loan to the defendant who paid. Failed to do so where the payment was acknowledged, there was no presumption in law that this person was intended to be returned. Old, who had come to court to recover the amount it had offered to pay the money that was intended to be. If one person owes money to another, it will not give rise to any concept that he made in the written state of the creditor of the loan as a waiver of the specific claim waiver. If the plaintiff had to pay the brick he had taken from him as he stated in his evidence that the plaintiff would not strengthen the case in any way, the plaintiff would have to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the plaintiff. ? The plaintiff failed to prove that it had a high amount of debt as a creditor to the plaintiff, the defendant's admission of the money received by the plaintiff would not preclude the claim that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. And that decision. below The court order was correct top advocate from Mansehra lawyer