Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 4

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,Rr.1,2,S.9

Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 & S. 9--- Recovery suit--- Maintainability--- Promissory note--- Scope--- 'Promissory note' and 'agreement'---Distinction---Non-mentioning of amount in instrument---Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 and 2 C.P.C. but office objection was maintained by Judge in Chambers of High Court and suit was declared to be not maintainable under summery jurisdiction---Validity---Whether an instrument was a 'promissory note' or not should be judged by words used, which depended upon circumstances and wording in each case---Whether a document was a promissory note or an agreement, one of the tests to be applied to find the same was intention of parties---Second test was whether document as drawn out could be said to be negotiable, that was to say, could a third person file suit on the strength of that document, if he could not, then it was mere an agreement---In alleged 'promissory note', amount for payment was not specified, therefore, there was no acknowledgement of liability, thus it was not a 'promissory note'---Central point in 'promissory note' was that it was an instrument containing and undertaking to pay money to another---Promissory note must state certain sum of money as payable under it and any instrument which did not state definite sum was not promissory note---Order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court required interference as plaintiff's suit should be treated as long cause suit and would be proceeded in ordinary jurisdiction under S. 9 C.P.C.--Appeal was dismissed accordingly. PLD 1965 SC 634; AIR 1926 Nag. 194; AIR 1925 Oudh 560; AIR 1951 Ajm. 71 and AIR 1957 Rajas. 360 ref ORDER Appellant has impugned the order passed by Single Judge, over the objection raised by the office about the maintainability of Suit No.Nil of 2008, whereby office Objection No. 1 was upheld that the suit was not covered under the law of Negotiable Instruments Act hence does not fall under the summary chapter. Learned counsel for the appellant has persistently invited our attention to a document dated 20-2-2006, connoting that it is a Promissory…

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