Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1,2

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---.--- ---.--- -O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2 ---.--- Qarz-e-Hasna ---.--- Scope ---.--- Plaintiff contended that though loan facility extended to the defendant was named as Qarz-e-Hasna but a pronote and receipt were also separately executed ---.--- Plaintiff submitted that term Qarz-e-Hasna actually denoted to a loan ---.--- Term was not used as a fiscal transaction amongst creature of pronote ---.--- Defendant contended that Qarz-e-Hasna was a loan repayable at borrower's convenience which was not recoverable unless the borrower was in a position to repay the same ---.--- Defendant denied signatures and thumb impression on the pronote and the receipt ---.--- Validity ---.--- Holy Quran is the basic and primary source of law and it is complete code of life ---.--- Term Qarz-e-Hasna was not coined by anybody, rather it was found in holy Quran itself ---.--- Qarz-e-Hasna/goodly loan signified whatever was given to another selflessly and absolutely with the belief that he would get the reward in the next world ---.--- Stipulation, however, was that the loan should be a "goodly" one i.e. it should not be tainted with selfish designs and it should be given for the sake of Allah, for the purpose of pleasing Allah ---.--- Term Qarz-e-Hasna was not available for a loan to be extended by a person in this world to another person ---.--- Although basic transaction was termed by the plaintiff in his plaint and evidence as Qarz-e-Hasna, but at the same time, such transaction was reduced into writing in the shape of pronote and receipt showing such fiscal transanction in between the parties ---.--- Execution of pronote although had been denied by the defendant, but both documents were shown to have been signed by the defendant ---.--- Signatures had been denied but not only Trial Court but High Court had also obtained his signatures in open court and, while comparing the same with the signatures available on referred documents, this was the consensus that both the documents were duly signed by the defendant ---.--- With the consent of the plaintiff/decree holder, the decretal amount was allowed by the High Court to be paid by the defendant/…

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