2006 PLP 895 (SCMR)
HAMEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GULAB KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 895 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | HAMEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GULAB KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 895 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 895 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 895 (SCMR) (HAMEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GULAB KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2003.
- 3. The two Courts have not relied upon Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 for the reasons, inter alia, that two marginal witnesses were not produced in evidence. Learned counsel for respondent-caveator has relied upon the case of Mrs. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad 2us others 2002 SCMR 1089 to fortify the above conclusion.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-7-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.F.A. No.584 of 2002).
O. XXXVII, R.2
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17(2) & 79
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit upon promissory note
Non-production of attesting witnesses of documents showing repayment of loan amount to plaintiff
Trial Court decreed suit for defendant's failure to establish his defence, which decree was upheld by Appellate Court
Non-production of marginal witnesses was fatal
Approach of Courts below was not defective
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others PLD 2002 SC 720 and Mrs. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others 2002 SCMR 1089 ref.
Art. 185
Concurrent findings of fact of Courts below
Supreme Court would not be required to review evidence, particularly when two Courts below had not violated any principle of law in arriving at such conclusions.
O. XLI, R.11
Dismissal of first appeal in limine
Scope
Practice of not dismissing appeal in limine might be a practice only evolved by High Court, but in law appeal could be dismissed in limine. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others PLD 2002 SC 720 fol.
Judgment & Decree
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.
The respondent brought a suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for recovery of Rs.11,00,000 (Rs. eleven lacs only) on the basis of a pronote executed on 15-5-1997. The petitioner did not deny borrowing of the amount and execution of the pronote but averred that he has returned the amount and that the original pronote was cancelled and the one relied upon by the plaintiff was forged. The trial Court concluded that the petitioner has not been able to establish his defence.. The High Court has upheld the decree vide order, dated 29-7-2002.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal, it is, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal could not have been dismissed in limine and that in any case, the agreement dated 27-4-1998 (Exh.D.1) and the Receipt (Exh.D.2) sufficiently establish the re-payment. He has relied on the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others PLD 2002 SC 720 to support the first contention.
3. The two Courts have not relied upon Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 for the reasons, inter alia, that two marginal witnesses were not produced in evidence. Learned counsel for respondent-caveator has relied upon the case of Mrs. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad 2us others 2002 SCMR 1089 to fortify the above conclusion.
4. The approach of the two Courts has not been shown to be defective in any manner. Non-production of the marginal witnesses is fatal. The findings of the two Courts being concurrent, this Court is not required to review the evidence particularly when the two Courts have not violated any principle of law in arriving at the conclusions.
5. We also find no force in the submission that the first appeal in the Lahore High Court could not have been dismissed in limine. Order XLI, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the lower Court for C transmission of record and without notice to the respondent. The practice of not dismissing the appeal in limine may be a practice only evolved by the High Court although in law, as noted above the appeal can be dismissed in limine. The judgment in Muhammad Ibrahim's- ease (supra) does not lay down a different law.
6. No ground for our interfere has been shown to exist. This petition is hereby dismissed and leaver is declined. S.A.K./H-87/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.