Law:

Section:

Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)-------Ss. 72, 84 & 6---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2---Suit for recovery of money---Non-presentation of cheque, effect---Dishonourment---Cause of action---Scope---Plaintiff sought recovery of money on basis of a cheque given to the plaintiff by the defendant---Suit was dismissed on the ground that the said cheque was never presented to the bank for payment, therefore no cause of action had arisen---Validity----When the cheque was never presented for payment, then in light of S.72 read with S.84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there was no refusal by the drawer or the bank for payment of the cheque, therefore, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing a suit under provisions of O.XXXVII, C.P.C.---Cheque was only payable on demand and cause of action arose only when such demand was not honoured---Suit of the plaintiff was therefore, not maintainable---Appeal was dismissed. Sardar Tariq Sher Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th August, 2013. JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this appeal appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 7-1-2002 whereby his suit filed under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a cheque for Rs.70,000, allegedly given by the respondent-defendant on 8-11-1998 to the appellant-plaintiff, who filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. on 21-6-2001. Leave was refused to the defendant-respondent. The evidence was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 7-1-2002 learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan dismissed the suit on the ground that the cheque was never presented for payment in the bank and when the cheque has not been presented, no cause of action is available to the plaintiff, therefore, dismissed the suit. 3. Respondent was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 9-10-2012. Even after that date no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Even today no one is present on his behalf, therefore, ex parte arguments have been heard. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that when leave to defend was refused, the learned…

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