| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 91 1974 SLD 91 1974 SCMR 84 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 528 of 1972, decision dated: 10th July 1973. (On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on the 10th of May 1972, in R. S. A. No. 488 of 1961)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Bashir Zafar, Advocate assisted by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 528 of 1972, decision dated: 10th July 1973. (On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on the 10th of May 1972, in R. S. A. No. 488 of 1961)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Bashir Zafar, Advocate assisted by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Mrs. DOREEN BARKAT RAM
VS
ABDUL HAKIM KHAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act (III of 1938)----S. 5 & West Pakistan Money Lenders Ordinance (XXIV of 1960), S. 3(5)-Licence issued expiring on 28-1-1955 and money-lender applying for its renewal on 27-12-1954-Money suit instituted on 17m1-1960, and licence issued on 18-8-1961-Old licence, held, enured until licence renewed in August 1961. (b) Pleadings - ------Execution of pronotes admitted-Defendant could not challenge consideration mentioned in pronotes as having not been received by her. ORDER HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of the sum of Rs.4,000 on the basis of three promissory notes said to have been executed by the petitioner for valuable consideration. In her written statement, the petitioner admitted the execution of the promissory notes but alleged that she had not received full consideration in respect thereof. According to her, she had only been paid Rs.2,000 and had been made to execute promissory notes for double the amount actually paid. The actual amount, she claims she has paid up at the rate of Rs.200 p. m. in 14 installments. She also set up a plea that there had been a novation of the contract by mutual consent in so far as one Mr. Aslant Lodhi of Maain s Restaurant had taken upon himself to clear the out-standings of the petitioner. Originally, eight issues were framed. Subsequently, another issue 7-A was framed to the effect "whether the plaintiff is a licensed money-lender." The trial Court found all issues against the petitioner and decreed the suit. So far as issue No. 7-A was concerned, the finding was that the respondent held a licence under the Punjab Registration of Money-Lenders Act, 1938, which expired on the 28th of January 1955. He bad applied for its renewal a month before on the 27th of December 1954, that is, well before the time prescribed in the statute, but no order had been passed thereon. Hence, in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act of 1938 or subsection (5) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Money Lenders Ordinance, 1960, the licence issued to him which was to expire on the 28th of January 1955 was to deemed to be…
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