Law:

Section:

(a) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) -- --S. 91-Pronote duly executed and embodying all terms of contract ruled out for non presentment--Person in whose favour such pronete executed, held, cannot fall back on original consideration and get his suit decreed. Somabhai Naranbhai Patel v. Kalyanbhai Kashibhai Patel A I R 1938 B L R 174 ; Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan Lal 133 1 C 1931 ; Sri Chand Sheo Pershad v. Lajjia Ram A I R 1939 Lah. 31 ; Bhorpurn v. Diwan Chand A I R 1940 Lab. 329 and K. M. Munir v. Mirza Rashid Ahmad Y L D 1963 Kar. 905 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 19118)- --- O. VI, r. 2-Maxim : Secundum allegata et probate-Appellant in his plaint, relying solely on pronote and not taking alternative plea of original transaction in case of pronote being found inadmissible-Appellant, held, could not be allowed in second appeal to put forth a different basis for cause of action, namely original consideration. [Second appeal]. Mst. Bhag Bhari and others v. Gajjarmal and others A I R 1917 Lah, 220 rel. JUDGMENT The circumstances giving rise to this second appeal by the plaintiff involving a short question of law are as follows. Muhammad Boota appellant filed suit against Muhammad Ali respondent for the recovery of Rs. 5,700 on the footing of a pronote executed by the respondent on 22nd of November, 1959. The plaint averred that the amount was advanced to the respondent by way of loan which the latter required to meet the expenses for construction of a house. The respondent executed a pronote (P. 1) payable at Ghazi Munara, District Sheikhupura as also the usual formal receipt (P. 2) in lieu of payment of money. The pronote was presented vainly to the respondent for repayment of the amount. Cause of action for the suit arose on 22nd of November, 1959, the date of execution of pronote. I have highlighted these averments in this short plaint to show that the claim for recovery of amount was based on the pronote only. The decision of the appeal turns on the question of the precise basis for the claim in the plaint. The respondent resisted the suit denying execution of pronote/receipt or payment of any amount by the appellant as also presentment of pronote for repayment of…