Section 2 (h) Road Maintenance / Construction Contract The dispute regarding payment for the additional work of the seal coat, however, did not cover the agreement between the parties. Was work. An oral evidence of the alleged affidavit by which the plaintiff relied was from a witness who stated that he had seen the contentious road on which the carpet maker, Meerkot, had been named, However, in cross-examination, it was not in a position to tell. The name and number of roads on which the seal coat is worked was not provided with any documentary evidence that the additional work of the seal coat was in fact entrusted to the plaintiff or that he had done the work The works are well presented. Proof of the fact that neither the seal coat's extra work was in fact done by him nor the fact that he had made the same claim, therefore, he is not entitled to claim payment for the addition of the coat coat work, Which was neither involved in the term 6 4 agreement nor could he establish that in fact he did it.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
