Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: O.XXXVII & O.VI & R. 2

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 78

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)

Section: 118

PLJ 2026 Peshawar 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O.XXXVII & O.VI & R. 2--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984), Art. 78--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881), S. 118--Suit for recovery of one crore (1,00,00,000/-)--Pronote refund to pay--Application for grant of leave--Allowed--Decree--Challenge to--Marginal witnesses--Proof of execution of a documents--Evidence--Every pleading should contain a statement in concise form of material facts on which party pleading relies for his claim or defence--It is also a well settled exposition of law that no party could lead evidence beyond pleadings--Mere production of a document neither lends any credence nor confers any probative value to it--Similarly, in case Lahore High Court had held that production of document on record and its proof were two independent aspects and latter aspect is vital, which made a fact to be proved--A negotiable instrument including a pronote had a presumption, however, such presumption was always rebuttal and if defendant succeeds to rebut execution of a negotiable instrument or if he succeeded that there exist no consideration for issuance of same then no presumption could be attached to such negotiable instrument--It is trite law that burden to rebut this presumption lies upon party arguing that negotiable instrument has not been made/drawn for consideration--Appeal allowed.                                                                      [Pp. 12 & 13] A, B, C & D Judgment Through the instant Regular First Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-Katlang, Mardan dated 30.07.2019, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. 2.       Precisely, the facts leading to the filing of the instant…