Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 449 2020 SLD 449 2020 CLD 265
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 100 of 2012, decision & hearing dated: 02-05-2018.
MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Saleem Faiz
Respondent(s) by: Ghulam Shabbir Shah

MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE GHULAM MURTAZA

VS

MUHAMMAD RAFI

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,R.1,2

(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Summary suits upon bills of exchange---Presumption as to negotiable instrument---Dishonoured cheque---Endorsement for consideration---Burden of proof---Scope---Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of dishonoured cheque and claimed that the defendant had borrowed the said amount---Defendant contended that he had issued an open cheque on account of fiscal liability but the liability stood discharged on account of certain transactions and he was liable to pay only Rs. 13,000---Trial Court decreed the suit---Validity---Plaintiff had not mentioned any specific date either in the plaint or in evidence as to when the loan amount was advanced to the defendant---Stance of plaintiff was not believable that just on the request of defendant such a huge amount was advanced without any documentation or even issuance of cheque at that time---Parties had no blood or family relation---Plaintiff contended that cheque was a negotiable instrument and since the defendant had not denied its issuance therefore burden of proof of non-payment of consideration was on the defendant---Presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not a conclusive presumption of drawing consideration of a negotiable instrument, rather it was rebuttable in nature and initial burden of proving that the negotiable instrument was executed against consideration was on the plaintiff---Plaintiff had failed to discharge the initial onus of passing on Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant---Appeal was allowed; impugned and decree was set aside and the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Muhammad Aziz-ur-Rehman v. Liaqat Ali 2007 CLD 1605; Muhammad Nawaz v. Qazi Muhammad Rashid 2018 CLC Note 34 and Asif Ali and 6 others v. Saeed Muhammad 2010 CLD 1301 ref. Salar Abdur Rauf v. Mst. Barkat Bibi 1973 SCMR 332 rel. (b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Presumption as to negotiable instruments---Dishonoured cheque---Endorsement for consideration---Burden of proof---Scope---Presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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