Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: OrderXXXVII,Rule2

Law: Stamp Act, of 1899

Section: 35,61,31,38,39,40,36

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII, R.2---Stamp Act (II of 1899), Ss.35 & 61---Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of pro note---Plea of insufficiency of stamps on the pro note at appellate stage---Admissibility---Trial Court, after hearing parties and evaluating the material on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff through the impugned which was challenged in appeal---Plaintiff asserted that the promissory note on the basis of which Trial Court decreed suit of the plaintiff was inadmissible in evidence for being insufficiently stamped---Validity---Promissory note and the receipt were admitted in evidence by the Trial Court---No objection at the appellate stage could be taken to the admissibility of these documents on the ground of insufficiency of stamps in view of S.36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 except as provided in section 61---Documents in question were insufficiently stamped to the extent of Rs.15 and such deficiency could be made good by passing the appropriate order under S.61 of the Stamp Act, 1899---High Court dismissed appeal with direction to plaintiff to pay Rs.15 on account of deficiency in stamp on the promissory note and the receipt, along with ten times penalty of Rs.150 and such amount should be paid into the account of District Collector. Union Insurance Company Ltd. Pakistan v. Hafiz Muhammad Siddique PLD 1978 SC 279 and Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Nawaz 2001 CLC 318 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII, R.2---Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of pro note---Plea of the defendant that no claim could be based on the promissory note as the same was not duly proved---Record revealed that the executant was confronted with the promissory note including the receipt during cross-examination but he denied its execution whereupon it was referred to the hand-writing expert of the Finger Print Bureau who gave report and opined that the promissory note as well as the receipt did bear the thumb impressions of the defendant---Based on opinion of the said report, the promissory note and the receipt in question were duly proved to have been executed by the defendant. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492