Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,R.2

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 17(2)(a),79

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII, R. 2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79---Summary suit on the basis of pronote---Document, proof of---Procedure---Trial Court decreed the suit along with fee of counsel for the plaintiff---Validity---Plaintiff had examined scribe of pronote and its second marginal witness---Requirements of Arts. 79 & 17(2)(a) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had been fulfilled in circumstances---Witnesses of plaintiff were consistent with regard to venue, time, date of execution of documents and payment of loan to the defendant---No discrepancy in the statements of witnesses produced by the plaintiff had been pointed out---Negotiable instrument for consideration had presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Consideration paid earlier in time was a good consideration---Admission of promissory note could not be called in question at a belated stage---Claim of plaintiff for fee of his counsel had not been established on record---Findings of Trial Court with regard to said extent were reversed in circumstances---Plaintiff was entitled for the amount as decreed by the Trial Court except to the extent of payment of fee to his counsel---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Nazir Ahmad and another v. M. Muzaffar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1639; Ghulam Asghar and 3 others v. Mst. Aisha and 13 others 2004 YLR 1376; Muhammad Sarwar Khan through Legal Heirs v. Salamat Ali and 2 others 2012 CLC 94; Sardar Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Yahya Khan 2000 CLC 296 and Mst. Sajida Abbas Zaidi v. Syed Arshad Ali Jafri 1990 CLC 1018 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-I, D.I.Khan, dated 26.04.2017, whereby respondent's suit for the recovery of amounting to Rs. 27,30,000/- (twenty seven lac and thirty thousand), against the appellant under provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C., based upon promissory note, was decreed. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, on 26.06.2017, respondent filed a suit for recovery of amount mentioned above, under the…

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