2016 PLP 2163 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHEED — Petitioner Versus Syed FAZAL ALI SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2163 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHEED — Petitioner Versus Syed FAZAL ALI SHAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Evidence, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2163 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Evidence, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 2163 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2163 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHEED — Petitioner Versus Syed FAZAL ALI SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Rafique Warriach, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 8-9-2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No. 66 of 2008)
O. XXXVII
Suit for recovery of money based on a cheque
Signatures on cheque, verification of
Statement of Bank officials, reliance upon
Scope
Defendant had taken a contradictory stance by first stating that the cheque was given to the plaintiff as a security for the repayment of the loan, but then claimed that cheque in question did not bear the defendant's signature
Defendant did not produce any expert at an appropriate point of time to establish that the signature on the cheque did not belong to him
Statement of Bank officers before the Trial Court that signatures on the cheque did not belong to the defendant was not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case, because they were not hand-writing experts capable of establishing or refuting the disputed signature of the defendant
Court was not under any compulsion or duty to seek an opinion from an expert, when the defendant never applied to the Court in such behalf
Moreover, the defendant had admitted that the cheque belonged to him and there was no evidence that the cheque was stolen by the plaintiff
Suit of plaintiff for recovery based upon the cheque in question was rightly decreed
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others 1999 SCMR 1778 ref.
Court was not required to fish for the evidence for a party and to fill up the lacuna of its case, particularly in a matter where the party itself was delinquent to prove its own case.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The suit of the respondent under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. for recovery based upon a cheque has been allowed after grant of leave to the petitioner and it has been found by the Trial Court that the cheque has been issued by the petitioner. The R.F.A. against that judgment has also failed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated, that in fact a security cheque was given to the respondent only for 10 days, and this was a security for the repayment of the loan. However, at the same time it is argued that the cheque in question does not bear the signature of the petitioner, as this has so been stated by the Bank Officers, and appearing as witnesses before the Trial Court, suffice it to say that there is a serious contradiction between the two stances taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner today. Besides, it is conceded that the cheque belongs to the petitioner and there is no evidence that the cheque was stolen by the respondent. Moreover, the petitioner did not at an appropriate point of time produce any expert to establish that the signature on the cheque does not belong to the petitioner. The statements of the Bank Officers, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are not relevant because they are not hand-writing experts capable of establishing or refuting the disputed signature of the petitioner. Though reliance has been placed on Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others (1999 SCMR 1778) to argue, that the Court should have sought an opinion from an expert, suffice it to say that it has never been held therein that it is a compulsion and a duty of the Court to do so especially when the petitioner never applied to the Court in this behalf. It is not required of a Court to fish for the evidence for a party and to fill up the lacuna of its case, particularly in the matter where the party itself is delinquent to prove its own case. In the light of the above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed accordingly. MWA/A-27/SC Petition dismissed.