Find a Lawyer

KHALID MUKHTAR versus SADIQA TASNEEM

CPC Summary Procedure for Civil Procedure Code Order XXXVII for Talks on Equipment, Receipt of Money by Respondent through R1 and 2 Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI of 1881), Section 118 The receipt of the money based on the promise filed for the vacancy was legally executed by the lender on the promissory note in which it promised the claimant a refund, and the plaintiff proved the execution of the documents. And witnesses presented by the plaintiff have long been subjected to cross-examination, but their credibility and non-credibility Nothing was removed to end the vow. The evidence of the plaintiff / creditors was not sufficient in the quantity and quality of the dispute / evidence regarding the execution of the promissory note, in the circumstances, was an unconditional promise note, which was fully proved, based on the instruments Was envisaged under section 118. Act, 1881 that it was with consideration that Borden was on the defendant / lender to prove that the promissory note was without consideration, but he failed to remove the burden, the plaintiff had, in the circumstances, completely It was proved that the promissory note was under consideration and the defendant had received the disputed amount from the plaintiff and the defendant was responsible for refunding the amount. top advocates from Abbottabad lawyer