Pronote

2016 CLC 848 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79Suit for recovery of loan amount on basis of promissory noteSummary procedure on negotiable instrumentPresumptions as to negotiable instrumentPronotePrinciples as to execution and proofOne of marginal witnesses to pronote and receipt of payment not producedEffect

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery alleging that defendant, having received loan on execution of promissory note, refused to return same, which was decreed by trial court

Validity

Defendant had specifically denied execution of pronote and receipt of payment

Initial onus was on shoulders of plaintiff to prove payment of loan consideration, besides valid execution of pronote and receipt

Only one of attesting witnesses had been produced, who deposed that neither loan amount was paid to defendant nor other attesting witness had signed pronote in his presence

Other attesting witness had not been produced

Pronote was not required to be attested by any witness, but receipt attached therewith must have been attested by two witnesses, and those witnesses were required to be produced to prove same

Plaintiff's contention that other marginal witness had moved abroad, and in such eventuality, trial court was justified in not drawing inference against plaintiff, was misconceived

Plaintiff's omission not to produce marginal witness was fatal as to proof of both pronote and receipt

Scribe of document could not be treated as attesting witness, particularly, when he had never deposed that loan amount was paid in his presence

Scribe of pronote had deposed that one of marginal witness had not signed pronote and receipt before him

Pronote and receipt had been scribed by layman and not by licensed deed writer

Plaintiff had not produced register of deed writer to support his version, thus inference was to be drawn against him

Under Art. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, although certain presumptions were attached to negotiable instrument, but same were rebuttable

Evidence produced by plaintiff was not sufficient to hold that disputed amount had been paid and pronote and receipt had been duly executed

Trial court, while decreeing suit, misinterpreted evidence available on record and erred in law

High Court, setting aside impugned judgment and decree, dismissed suit with costs

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2015 SCMR 284 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVIIStamp Act (II of 1899), S. 12Summary suit for recovery of moneyPronoteStamps on pronote not properly cancelledPronote containing 20 adhesive stamps out of which only 2 not cancelled/crossedQuestion was as to whether such pronote was admissible in evidence to file a suit under O. XXXVII, C.P.C.

Stamp Act, 1899, was a revenue collecting law and the object of cancelling of stamps was only that the same might not be used again on any other document

Provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 were not intended to deny vested rights of the parties and to punish the beneficiary of the pronote

Pronote would be deemed to be unstamped only to the extent of the stamps which had not been cancelled

As only two stamps were not cancelled in the present case, the pronote was insufficiently stamped only to the extent of said two stamps

Such pronote could be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty provided under the law and it could not be held that suit filed under O. XXXVII, C.P.C., on basis of such pronote was incompetent

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2015 SCMR 284 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 36Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVIIPronoteSummary suit for recovery of moneyStamps on pronote not properly cancelled

Defendant not raising any objection in his written statement regarding non-cancellation of some of the stamps on pronote

Effect

Such pronote would be admissible in evidence and suit filed on basis of the same would be competent

According to S. 36 of Stamp Act, 1899, document once admitted in evidence could not be challenged at any stage of the proceedings on the ground for not being duly stamped except under S. 61 of the said Act.