2008 PLP 618 (CLC)
SAJJAD ASLAM GONDAL — Plaintiff Versus Messrs GONDAL TEXTILE through Chief Executive Officer/Proprietor and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 618 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAJJAD ASLAM GONDAL — Plaintiff Versus Messrs GONDAL TEXTILE through Chief Executive Officer/Proprietor and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 618 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 618 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 618 (CLC) (SAJJAD ASLAM GONDAL — Plaintiff Versus Messrs GONDAL TEXTILE through Chief Executive Officer/Proprietor and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note
Plaintiff had claimed that document on basis of which suit had been filed was a promissory note and on basis of it suit could be filed
Office had raised objection that suit was not covered under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Essential ingredients of the promissory note were that same was in writing; there could be an unconditional undertaking to pay the amount; there should be a certain sum of money and that the payment should be made at a fixed or determinable future time on demand
Documents revealed that all said essential ingredients were lacking in the document; said document thus, could not be equated with a promissory note
Office objection was upheld and counsel for plaintiff was required to file amended title of the suit correcting the provision of law and after submission of amended title, office could register suit.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDMQI, J.
1. Granted.
2. The office has raised objection that the suit is not covered under the law of Negotiable Instruments Act/summary chapter and cannot be filed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff refers to the document dated 20-2-2006 appearing at page 49 of the file and submits that this is a promissory note and on this basis the suit under summary chapter can be filed. The learned counsel further referred to section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and submits that this document fulfilled all the requirement of a promissory note. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the document. From the reading of above section it appears that the essential ingredients of a promissory note are that the same is in writing, there may be an unconditional undertaking to pay the amount, there should be a certain sum of money and that the payment should be made at a fixed or determinable future time on demand. From the perusal of the documents it appears that all the above essential ingredients are lacking in the document. The said document cannot be equated with a promissory note. In view of the above, the office objection No.(i) is upheld. The learned counsel for the plaintiff is required to file amended title of the suit correcting the provision of law. After submission of the amended title the office may register the suit as long cause suit. 3 to
5. Deferred to be taken up after filing of the amended title. H.B.T./S-6/K Order accordingly.