| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1190 2025 SLD 1190 = 2025 SCMR 653 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No. 1618 of 2024, decided on 17th February, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed by Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench in R.F.A.No. 53-D of 2020 with C.M. No. 31-D of 2020). Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.
PRESENT: NAEEM AKHTER AFGHAN AND SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JJ
Aftab Alam Yasir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Mehmood Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for legal heirs
Respondent.
C.P.L.A. No. 1618 of 2024, decided on 17th February, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed by Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench in R.F.A.No. 53-D of 2020 with C.M. No. 31-D of 2020). Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.
PRESENT: NAEEM AKHTER AFGHAN AND SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JJ
Aftab Alam Yasir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Mehmood Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for legal heirs
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD ADNAN ---PETITIONER
VS
SALAH-UD-DIN ---RESPONDENT
Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section: 4
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 17(2)(a)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2
Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)-------S. 4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17(2)(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery of money---Promissory note, non-attestation of---Evasive denial---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed by both the Courts below in his favour and against the petitioner/defendant---Validity---Promissory note, under section 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is required to contain four essential ingredients: (i) an unconditional undertaking to pay; (ii) the sum should be the sum of money and certain; (iii) the payment should be to or to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer of the instrument; and (iv) the maker should sign it---If an instrument fulfills such four conditions, it is called a promissory note---Requirement of attestation of a document provided under Article 17 (2)(a) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 does not apply to promissory note---Petitioner/defendant took a vague stance and evasively denied allegations so made by the respondent/plaintiff as to his claim against petitioner/defendant---Such denial without any substantive proof could not be considered and approved---Trial Court and High Court minutely appreciated and evaluated pleadings of parties and had assessed evidence on the principle of preponderance---Both the Court below reached to a just conclusion that petitioner/defendant failed to successfully overturn the stand taken by respondent/plaintiff against him---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below in favor of respondent/plaintiff---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.Sheikh Muhammad Shakeel v. Sheikh Hafiz Muhammad Aslam 2014 SCMR 1562 and Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others 1999 SCMR 2633 rel.ORDER:SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.---Succinctly, the respondent instituted a suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Rs.1,962,000/- on the basis of promissory note along with costs, wherein the petitioner was served, who filed application for leave to appear and…