Law: Code of Civil Procedure of 1882

Section: XXXVII RULE 2,XVII RULE 3

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

REMARKS(1) The mere denial that the appellant had not signed the pronote would not be sufficient and he seems to have taken the plea just to get rid of the payment outstanding against him. The burden heavily lies upon the appellant, as in case of negotiable instrument, it is the defendant who is duty-bound to prove contrary, because the presumption is attached to the negotiable instrument, but even then, the respondent has successfully proved, and there is nothing in rebuttal on behalf of the appellant. The story cooked up by the appellant has not been supported with any cogent evidence.(2) In light of section 118 of the Act, where the execution of the negotiable instrument was admitted, the burden of proof of non-payment of consideration would lie on the executant, which is lacking in this case. The appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption raised…

Login required to view the attachment.