| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 484 2017 SLD 484 2017 CLD 35 |
Peshawar High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 186 of 2015, decided on 12th August, 2016.
YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Mazullah Khan Barkandi for Appellant. Saadatullah Khan Tangi for
Respondent.
Regular First Appeal No. 186 of 2015, decided on 12th August, 2016.
YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Mazullah Khan Barkandi for Appellant. Saadatullah Khan Tangi for
Respondent.
LIAQAT ALI KHAN
VS
MST. SHAFAQ UROOJ --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S.4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 & 7---Suit for recovery of money---Summery proceedings---Promissory note---Pre-conditions---Suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of money was decreed in her favour by Trial Court---Plea raised by defendant was that promissory note relied upon by plaintiff was in fact an agreement and did not fulfil essential ingredients provided under S. 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, therefore, he was prejudiced by trial---Validity---Disputed promissory note was titled to be an Iqrar Nama and also referred to an arrangement regarding transfer of property to a third party, therefore, the same could not be intended by its maker to be a promissory note---Defendant was acknowledging his debt and undertook payment to plaintiff and had also promised to transfer specific piece of land to a third person---Such promissory note could be termed as an acknowledgement of debt or an agreement between parties but the same could not practicably be negotiable by plaintiff---Disputed promissory note was not promissory note within the contemplation of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Trial Court granted leave to defendant and thereafter a proper trial followed within the contemplation of O. XXXVII, R. 7, C.P.C.---Defendant was provided with all opportunity to produce evidence to rebut claim of plaintiff---If Trial Court proceeded to decide the case in summary manner, within the purview of O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C., a case could have been made out in favour of defendant to have been prejudiced---When Trial Court proceeded with suit as an ordinary trial by providing both parties to produce their pro and contra evidence, no question of prejudice to either party could be raised---High Court modified and decree passed by Trial Court only to the extent of charging of interest from the date of filing of suit instead of date of signing of promissory note---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Messrs Seri Sugar Mill's case 2013 CLD 1254; Khalid Mahmood's case PLD 2011 Lah. 52; Rashid-ur-Rehman's case PLD 2005 Lah. 416; Bherulal's case AIR (38) 1951 Ajmer 71; Arab Khan's case 2014 CLC 533;…
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