Suit on negotiable instrument

2020 CLD 1424 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 118Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Suit on negotiable instrumentPresumption as to negotiable instrumentNegotiable instrument drawn without considerationBurden of proofScope

Appellant/defendant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby respondent's/plaintiff's suit for recovery of amount under O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., was decreed

Validity

Defendant himself had admitted that he had filled and signed the cheque (negotiable instrument in question) but had stated that it was a guarantee cheque

Onus to prove that the cheque was issued as a guarantee was on the defendant, after admission of the execution of cheque, but he failed to prove his version through oral or documentary evidence

Impugned judgment and decree did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, requiring interference, therefore, appeal was dismissed.

2020 CLD 1392 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 118Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Suit on negotiable instrumentPresumptions as to negotiable instrumentNegotiable instrument drawn without considerationBurden of proofScope

Plaintiff/respondent filed suit for recovery of certain amount on the basis of promissory note against the defendant/appellant, which was decreed

Held, that marginal witnesses of the pro note had fully corroborated the version of the plaintiff and had also testified about the execution of pro note

Expert of the Fingerprint Bureau had affirmed that the pro note bore the thumb impression of defendant

Defendant had failed to substantiate his claim that consideration of pro note was not received by him

Appeal was dismissed.

2020 YLR 2330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118Suit on negotiable instrumentPresumptions as to negotiable instrumentsNegotiable instrument drawn without considerationBurden of proofScope

Plaintiff/respondent filed suit for recovery of certain amount on the basis of promissory note against the defendant/appellant, which was decreed

Held, that marginal witnesses of the pro note had fully corroborated the version of the plaintiff and had also testified about the execution of pro note

Expert of the Fingerprint Bureau had affirmed that the pro note bore the thumb impression of defendant

Defendant had failed to substantiate his claim that consideration of pro note was not received by him

Appeal was dismissed.

2020 CLC 1496 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118Suit on negotiable instrumentPresumption as to negotiable instrumentNegotiable instrument drawn without considerationBurden of proofScope

Appellant/defendant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby respondent's/plaintiff's suit for recovery of amount under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C., was decreed

Validity

Defendant himself had admitted that he had filled and signed the cheque (negotiable instrument in question) but had stated that it was a guarantee cheque

Onus to prove that the cheque was issued as a guarantee was on the defendant, after admission of the execution of cheque, but he failed to prove his version through oral or documentary evidence

Impugned judgment and decree did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, requiring interference, therefore, appeal was dismissed.

2014 CLC 1063 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3Suit on negotiable instrumentConsideration and cause for initiation of suitScopeContention of defendant was that he got stopped payment from his account due to loss of cheque in questionSuit was decreed by the Trial CourtValidity

Present suit was filed under Order XXXVII, Rules 2 & 3, CPC which would require summary trial and procedure for the same was different to the rest of civil suits

Consideration and cause for initiation of every claim was necessary but in the present suit same was absent

Evidence of plaintiff was silent as to when and in whose presence the cheque in dispute was issued to him

Claim of plaintiff had no support from his evidence that there existed such amount against the defendant

Cheque in dispute was not dishonored due to insufficient amount but same was referred to drawer on account of his application with regard to stoppage of payment from his account

Defendant had been acquitted from the criminal case registered on the basis of said cheque

No evidence was on record with regard to any business transaction/ partnership between the parties

Plausible explanation had been given by the defendant that his cheque book was stolen by the plaintiff from his Munshi and his statement had not been rebutted

Plaintiff had failed to rebut the fact that as to why and under what circumstances and for what purpose defendant thus informed the bank for loss of his cheque book prior to four months to the issuance of cheque in question

Such fact was in the knowledge of plaintiff but he remained silent

Onus of proof in civil cases would not be permanently fixed but same would shift consistently

No burden or duty was on the plaintiff to prove the transaction of cheque when signature over the same was accepted by the defendant but defendant had discharged his burden with regard to theft of cheque, fraud on the part of plaintiff, missing of cheque book and stoppage of payment from his account

Plaintiff had failed to make out a case to justify or entitle him for the claim of alleged amount

Trial Court had not considered the real facts and evidence and instead of deciding contentious points attended extraneous material

Impugned judgment and decree were set aside and suit was dismissed

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.