Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1,2

(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 2---Suit on negotiable instrument--- Presumption as to negotiable instrument---Negotiable instrument drawn without consideration---Burden of proof---Scope/defendant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby respondents/plaintiffs suit for recovery of amount under O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 2, C.P.C., was decreed---Validity---Defendant himself had admitted that he had filled and signed the cheque (negotiable instrument in question) but had stated that it was a guarantee cheque---Onus to prove that the cheque was issued as a guarantee was on the defendant, after admission of the execution of cheque, but he failed to prove his version through oral or documentary evidence---Impugned and decree did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, requiring interference, therefore, appeal was dismissed. Muhammad Azizur Rehman v. Liaqat Ali 2007 SCMR 1820; Muhammad Ali v. Wali Muhammad 2015 CLD 1820; Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Idrees 2014 CLC 1001 and Syed Zawar Hussain v. Syed Riazul Abbas Sherazi 2015 MLD 890 ref. Muhammad Azizur Rehman v. Liaquat Ali 2007 CLD 1542 rel. (b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Presumption as to negotiable instrument---Scope---Initial presumption is that the negotiable instrument is made, drawn, accepted or endorsed for consideration and in a case to the contrary, onus is on the person who is claiming to have executed a guarantee cheque. Muhammad Azizur Rehman v. Liaquat Ali 2007 CLD 1542 rel. JUDGMENT MASUD ABID NAQVI, J.--- Brief facts of this appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed, a suit for recovery of Rs.19,00,000/- under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. against the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant appeared before the learned trial court and filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit which was duly contested by the respondent/plaintiff by filing written reply thereto. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/defendant has preferred instant regular first appeal…

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