| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2927 2017 SLD 2927 2017 CLC 1736 |
Sindh High Court
Summary Suit No. 723 of 2005, heard on 29-03-2016.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aqil and Arif Dawood for Plaintiff. Munawwar Malik for Defendant.
Summary Suit No. 723 of 2005, heard on 29-03-2016.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aqil and Arif Dawood for Plaintiff. Munawwar Malik for Defendant.
PETITIONERS: FARIDULLAH KHAN
VS
RESPONDENTS: MASOOD ASGHAR MIAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Counsel and client--- ----Advocate and pleader---Scope---Pleader is entitled to appear for 'another' and not for himself---If one wants to represent his/her client as 'advocate' then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client), as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as 'advocate' and has to clothe with 'attorney/authorized agent'. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 4---Suit for recovery of money---Agreement---Suit for summary trial was filed by plaintiff on the basis of agreement---Validity---Negotiable instrument under S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, required that it should be an unconditional promise for making payment---Agreement had its own meaning and definition and if there was a promise to pay certain amount with reference to 'agreement' it was sufficient to bring such document out of the scope of S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Such was not a short cause within the ambit of O.XXXVII, C.P.C. and holder of such document (plaintiff) was required to file a regular suit in the Court having jurisdiction---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE:---.--- Through instant suit plaintiff prayed as under:- "It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing him to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.100,00,000/- along with an interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum in the interest of justice." 2. Precisely, relevant facts of the suit as set out in the plaint are that defendant obtained a loan of rupees one crore from the plaintiff on 19.03.2003 in pursuance of a written promissory note dated 19.03.2003, with receipt of said amount, thereafter plaintiff approached the defendant for return of the amount but he avoided to pay the same, such demand was made time and again but with no result, he filed instant suit. 3. Pursuant to notice/summons, defendant appeared; filed written statement wherein denied execution of the promissory note and receipt but raised a…
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