2007 PLP 70 (CLC)
ALTAF AHMAD — Appellant Versus KHALID UMAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 70 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALTAF AHMAD — Appellant Versus KHALID UMAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 70 (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 2007 PLP 70 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 70 (CLC) (ALTAF AHMAD — Appellant Versus KHALID UMAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent proceeding against ex parte.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note
Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on ground that adhesive stamps on pro note had not been cancelled/defaced
Observation of the Trial Court that stamps on pro note had not been cancelled, was correct
Since such promissory note on which case of plaintiff was based, was itself inadmissible in evidence, suit filed by plaintiff was rightly dismissed
Judgment of Court below, could not be interfered with in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The respondent has been served but none has appeared on his behalf despite service. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000 on the footing of a promissory note dated 10-2-1999. The said suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the adhesive stamps on the pro note have not been cancelled/defaced, with the result that the said promissory note is not duly stamped and, therefore, cannot be treated as admissible evidence. I have myself examined the promissory note and find the observation of the learned trial Court to be correct. Since the promissory note on which the appellant's case was based, is itself inadmissible in evidence, the suit of the appellant was rightly dismissed. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned decree. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./A-626/L Appeal dismissed.