Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 59---Summary suit for recovery of money---Pronote, authenticity of---Proof---Evidence of witnesses of pronote---Report of hand writing expert negating authenticity of pronote---Importance to be given to (direct) evidence of witnesses over report of handwriting expert---Witnesses in whose presence the pronote was signed were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but they remained consistent on the point that such pronote was executed---Report of handwriting expert on its own could not be made basis to discard the (authenticity) of the pronote in the presence of such strong and direct evidence---Where direct evidence to prove a fact was available then much importance had to be given to it---Suit filed on basis of pronote in question was competent---Appeal was allowed accordingly. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 59---Proof of a fact---Direct evidence---Expert evidence---Where direct evidence to prove a fact was available then much importance had to be given to it, and expert evidence in such circumstances carried no legal value. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII---Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 12---Summary suit for recovery of money---Pronote---Stamps on pronote not properly cancelled---Pronote containing 20 adhesive stamps out of which only 2 not cancelled/crossed---Question was as to whether such pronote was admissible in evidence to file a suit under O. XXXVII, C.P.C.---Stamp Act, 1899, was a revenue collecting law and the object of cancelling of stamps was only that the same might not be used again on any other document---Provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 were not intended to deny vested rights of the parties and to punish the beneficiary of the pronote---Pronote would be deemed to be unstamped only to the extent of the stamps which had not been cancelled---As only two stamps were not cancelled in the present case, the pronote was insufficiently stamped only to the extent of said two stamps---Such pronote could be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty provided under the law and it could not be held that suit filed under O. XXXVII,…

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