| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2298 2015 SLD 2298 2015 MLD 1575 |
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 166 of 2005, heard on 3rd April, 2015.
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J
Mian Muhammad Akram for Appellant. Abdul Khaliq Dogar for
Respondent
R.F.A. No. 166 of 2005, heard on 3rd April, 2015.
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J
Mian Muhammad Akram for Appellant. Abdul Khaliq Dogar for
Respondent
ABDUL RAZZAQ
VS
BAGH ALI
Law:
Section:
Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 72---Suit on basis of promissory note---When case of defendant was of total denial then he could not further challenge contents of promissory note which had been duly proved by plaintiff---When date was fixed for repayment and plaintiff demanded the same, suit filed on non-fulfilment of obligation by defendant was in accordance with S. 72, Limitation Act, 1908 and same was within time----Defendant was required to rebut presumptions mentioned under S.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which were attached with negotiable instrument, but he failed to do so---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this appeal appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari dated 9-6-2005 whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent for Rs.40,500 on the basis of Promissory Note has been decreed. 2. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that the endorsement on the Promissory Note makes it defective whereby it has been mentioned that the appellant-defendant will pay the amount on 15-1-1987, as the Promissory Note is dated 15-7-1986. It is contended that to make the suit within limitation this endorsement has been made otherwise the suit is barred by time when it was filed on 17-7-1989. Further that the evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent is contradictory and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable under the law. Prays for acceptance of this appeal and setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 9-6-2005 and further that Article 73 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable and learned trial court has wrongly applied Article 72 of the Schedule-I of the Limitation Act, 1908. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff argues that judgment and decree has been passed strictly in accordance with law and Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable as the date was fixed for 15-1-1987. States that even the Petition Writer, who has been produced as P.W.1, has fully proved…
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