Negotiable Instruments

2018 MLD 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118Summary suit on the basis of chequeNegotiable instrumentExpert evidenceScope

Cheque was given status of 'negotiable instrument' which could not be engineered or fabricated as other document (s) declared or qualified as 'negotiable instrument'

Defendant had taken contradictory stance in the present case

No question of issuance of cheque book would arise without having an account opened

Nothing was on record that any FIR was lodged with regard to alleged theft of cheque

Cheque in question belonged to defendant

Defendant could not escape the consequences arising therefrom unless proved contrary which he had failed to do

Mere typographical mistake/error could not decrease the consequences which a 'drawer' had to ensure encashment/payment of amount to the 'holder'

Plea which was not taken before the Trial Court could not be looked into by the Appellate Court

Evidence of an expert was nothing more than confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence

Such evidence of expert could not be given preference over confidence inspiring and worthy of credence evidence available to prove otherwise

Defendant had not produced any document in support of his claim

Cheque in question was issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff which was dishonoured by the bank on presentation

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 MLD 890 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3 & O. XX, R. 5Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118Institution of summary suit on the basis of chequeOral agreementRequirementsNegotiable instrumentsPresumptionRemandScopePlaintiff filed suit for recovery of money on the basis of cheque which was decreed by the Trial CourtContention of defendant was that impugned cheque was stolen with the connivance of his driverValidityTrial Court was bound to decide the matter issue-wise but same had not been decided in the said mannerWhen normal procedure was deviated then there was a chance of wrong decision by the courtCase should not be remanded only for re-writing of judgment issue-wise when evidence was available

Plaintiff was required to plead the detail of oral agreement to sell/transaction of sale i.e. date, place and time of agreement as well as witnesses before whom the transaction was arrived for proving an oral transaction of sale or agreement to sell as well as detail of property and payment under agreement

Plaintiff had not given the detail of property and amount received by defendant

Complete case should be before the court as well as before the other party of a person who had come for pressing his right on the basis of an oral agreement so that other party might be able to defend the same

Pleading and evidence of plaintiff were not up to mark and payment of consideration could not be determined

Plaintiff had failed to plead the agreement to sell or transaction of sale and payment of consideration amount to the defendant

No question for handing over the cheque for re-payment of amount would arise

Presumption was attached with the negotiable instrument but same was rebuttable

Cheque in question was not with regard to the re-payment of amount received by the defendant

Signatures upon the cheque did not mean the issuance of cheque

Litigation between the parties was on record before filing the present suit

Presumption attached with the cheque had validly been rebutted by the defendant

False suit had been filed against the defendant who would be at liberty to press for damages in the litigation

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were set aside with cost throughout

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

2003 CLD 420 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, Expln. & 58Explanation to S.9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Purpose and functionLegislature enacted the, explanation with 'purpose to explain what otherwise would be doubtful or ambiguous

Function of the explanation to the extent of explaining a stipulated situation was definitive clarifying or defining the legal position in a supposed state of facts

Not correct to contend that the explanation only exemplified some of the defects in title, but not all kinds of defects enumerated in S.58 of the Act

Explanation explained a stipulated situation and pointed out the nature of defect in title in terms of S.58 of the Act, which enumerated the defects by reasons of fraud or for unlawful consideration.

1953 PLD 117 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Negotiable Instruments Dual aspects

"Paper Currency" or "chattel" on one hand, and "debts" or "chooses in action" on the other.

1952 PLD 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Negotiable Instruments

Cheque-Indorsed in blank by payee-Payee as well as officer to whose account the cheque was to be debited advising bank to withhold payment to endorsee-Banker expressly undertaking not to make payment-Cheque nevertheless paid-Bank's negligence-Suit by payee against bank for amount of cheque as damages on basis of negligence-Whether competent-Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss. 10, 30, 129.