2004 PLP 1505 (YLR)
MUMTAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1505 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Javed Buttar, J |
| Parties | MUMTAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1505 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1505 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Javed Buttar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1505 (YLR) (MUMTAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahla for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.XXXVII, R.2‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan on the basis of pro note and receipt‑‑ Pro note, execution of‑‑‑Coercion, fraud and misrepresentation was alleged in the defence‑‑‑Suit decreed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contents of written statement as well as the deposition made by the defendant clearly led to the conclusion that the signatures and thumb‑impressions on the pronote and the receipt were not denied‑‑‑No independent impartial evidence was brought on the record to show that `the same were obtained by the plaintiff by fraud and coercion‑‑ Plaintiff was supported by the deposition of scribe and marginal witness, who deposed about the payment and signatures/thumb marks of the defendant, and were not shaken in the cross‑examination‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
3. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ Issues:‑
(1) Whether the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the alleged promissory note and receipt is without consideration, if so, is the suit liable to be dismissed? OPD (2) Whether the defendant's signatures and thumb‑impression were got on promissory note and receipt by practising coercion upon him, if so, to what effect? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his work and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,22,000 on the basis of alleged promissory note dated 9‑4‑1996 by him as alleged? OPP. (5) Relief.
4. The plaintiff appeared as P.W.3 and produced Bashir Ahmad, scribe of pro note and receipt (Exhs. P.A and P.B) as P.W.1 and Mulazam Hussain, marginal witness of the aforesaid documents, as P.W.2. The appellant/defendant appeared as D.W.1 while he produced Zahoor Ahmad as D.W.2. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, as mentioned above, vide its judgment and decree dated 16‑4‑2002, decreed the respondent's suit as prayed for. Issues Nos.1 to 3 were answered in negative and Issue No.4 was answered in affirmative.
5. The appellant as D.W.1 has stated that the plaintiff got his thumb‑impressions on some papers through police and the pro note and receipt are fake and fictitious, but in the cross‑examination he admitted that he did not go to the higher police officers regarding the aforesaid alleged ialegal use of force by the police. He further stated that he cannot deny that the thumb impressions on the pro note and receipt (Exhs.P.A. and. P.B.) are of him. D.W.2, Zahoor Ahmad, was not present when the pro note and receipt were executed. His deposition is, therefore, irrelevant. The contents of the written statement as well as the deposition made by the appellant as D.W.1, clearly lead to the conclusion that the signatures and thumb‑impressions etc. on the pro note and receipt are not denied by the appellant and there is no independent impartial evidence available on the record to show that the same were obtained by the plaintiff by practicing fraud and coercion. Even otherwise the thumb‑impressions and signatures on pro note (Exh.P.A) and receipt (Exh. P.B) stand proved through the statements of P.W.1, Bashir Ahmad, the scribe of the documents and P.W.2, Mulazam Hussain, the marginal witness. Both of them stated that the defendant (the present appellant) put his thumb impressions and signatures in their presence and the amount in dispute was handed over to him in their presence. They have not been shaken in the cross examination.
6. In view of the above mentioned, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs. M.I./M‑2402/L Appeal dismissed.