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

Section: 17(2)(a)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: Rule 1,2

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 17(2)(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of a promissory note---Non-appearance of second attesting witness---Inconsequential---Evidence produced deficient---Defendant filed appeal as the Trial Court decreed the suit---Validity---Only one witness out of the attesting witnesses of the pronote was produced, who admitted, during crossexamination, that appellant/defendant did not sign the pronote in his presence; that loan was not paid in his presence, and that the other witness of promissory note did not come to house of plaintiff/ respondent in his presence at the time when the promissory note was being written---Thus said attesting witness had not supported the stance of respondent/ plaintiff and his depositions were in contradiction to the statement of respondent/plaintiff---The other attesting witness had died so could not be produced in evidence, however, his son, as a witness of the plaintiff/ respondent, identified the signatures of his father on exhibited pronote---Thus, evidence produced by respondent/plaintiff was not sufficient to hold that the disputed amount had been paid and pronote and receipt had been duly executed--Trial Court while passing the impugned decision had misinterpreted the evidence brought on record and erred in law, hence the same were unsustainable in the eye of law---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment and decree, consequently, respondent's suit was dismissed---Appeal, filed by defendant, was allowed, in circumstances.

Gulzar Mehmood Khan v. Abdul Whaeed 2016 CLC 848 and Khawaja Aftab Ahmad v. Qazi Abdul Ali 2016 YLR 1552 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXVII, R. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of a promissory note---