Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O,XXXXVII,2

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII, R. 2---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Summary suit on the basis of pronote---Document, proof of---Procedure---Testimony of scribe---Evidentiary value---Expression "shall not be used as evidence"---Plaintiff did not produce marginal witnesses of the promissory note---Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff---Validity---Document required to be attested was not to be used as evidence unless two attesting witnesses (at least) had been called for the purpose of proving its execution---Testimony of scribe could not defeat the spirit of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Provision of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was mandatory in nature---Testimony of scribe could not be equated with an attesting witness however, he could be examined for corroboration of evidence of attesting witnesses---Trial Court had committed illegality while passing the impugned and decree which were set aside and suit was dismissed---Appeal was allowed, accordingly. Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs PLD 2011 SC 241 and Muhammad Amin v. Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1993 Lah. 569 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: S.M. ATTIQUE SHAH, JUSTICE:---.--- This is an appeal, filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I. Khan, whereby the suit of respondent No.1 was decreed. 2. The brief facts of the case, out of which the instant appeal arises, are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. against the appellant/defendant No.1 and pro forma respondents Nos.2 and 3 for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- on the basis of promissory note dated 21.3.2011 along with profit at bank rate. It is averred in the plaint that the parties were having friendly relations. On 21.3.2011 the appellant/defendant No.1 and pro forma respondents Nos.2 and 3 came to plaintiff/respondent No.1 and demanded Rs.4,00,000/- each. Due to cordial relations, the respondent No.1 handed over Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs.4,00,000/- to each defendant) in the presence of witnesses and in this respect they scribed promissory notes in his favour. When 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