Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1,2

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)---.--- ---.---O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---.---Suit for recovery on basis of pronote---.---Plaint of suit was returned for institution before Court of ordinary jurisdiction---.---Pronotewas signed by two witnesses---.---Negotiable instrument---.---Validity---.---Promissory note even if was attested by two witnesses, same remains within definition of pro-note and a recovery suit on basis of negotiable instrument is triable by District Court under Order XXXVII Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, JUSTICE:---.--- The precise facts of the case are that Muhammad Ramzan appellant filed a recovery suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 2 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 against the respondent/defendant on the basis of a pro-note dated 6.1.2005 with the assertion that she had borrowed an amount of Rs. 95,000/-from him for two months and promised to return the same till 06.3.2005, but on demand she refused to repay the same. The respondent/defendant was proceeded against ex parte on 09.2.2007. However she put in appearance before the learned trial Court on 21.3.2007 by filing two separate applications one for leave to defend the suit and the other for setting aside of ex parte order dated 09.2.2007 and the case was fixed for arguments for 03.7.2007 when the plaint of the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was returned to him for institution before the Court of Ordinary jurisdiction vide order dated 03.7.2007. Hence the instant appeal. 2. On calls none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. The report of the Process Server shows that the respondent was once served through her husband and twice she refused to accept service of the notice. It appears that the respondent is not interested to pursue this matter on merits, who is proceeded against ex parte. 3. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant heard and record perused. 4. The learned trial Court after having found that the pro- note was signed by two witnesses and while relying upon the dicta laid down in judgment reported as Abdul Rauf Vs. Farooq Ahmed and another (PLD 2007 Lahore 114) observed that the disputed pro-note on the…

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