Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

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

Section: 60

Law: Civil Protection and Welfare Bureau (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2010

Section: 1,2

Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 60---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of promissory notes---Document, execution of---Proof---Presumption---Denial by the defendant---Comparison of signatures---Claim of the appellant/plaintiff was that on the request of respondents/defendants he arranged a loan of ten million rupees for which a guarantee agreement and promissory notes were executed---Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove execution of alleged documents---Validity---Record revealed that respondents had strongly denied the execution of both the agreement and promissory notes so much so that they filed an application under Art. 60 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for analysis of documents from the Forensic Science Lab ('the FSL'), in which regard, in the opinion of expert, (appellant') asserted signatures (in Urdu as well as in English) of both the respondents did not tally with the specimen/routine signatures supplied by them---Although the initial presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881') that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn, or accepted or endorsed for consideration, yet the said presumption was rebuttable, but in the present case, the respondents had straight away denied the execution of alleged promissory notes, therefore, the appellant had to discharge the said burden that the promissory notes had been duly executed and signed by the respondents---Opinion by the FSL after analysis of documents created serious doubts regarding execution of the promissory notes---Appellant had failed to prove payment to the respondents and execution of promissory notes---Contents of the promissory notes read that payment in millions was made, surprisingly, "in cash" at Court premises (Katchehri), therefore, the complete edifice upon which the appellant had built his case stood crumbled---Even alleged agreement having been exhibited by the appellant was not notarized in accordance with applicable laws which created another doubt regarding its…

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