| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1841 2026 SLD 1841 = 2026 PLJ 29 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
1st Appeal No. 35 of 2021, decided on 13.10.2023.
Presented By: Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J.
1st Appeal No. 35 of 2021, decided on 13.10.2023.
Presented By: Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J.
MUHAMMAD QABOOL--Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF--Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: O.XXXVII R. 2
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 17, 79, 117
PLJ 2026 Civil (Note) 29 [Sindh High Court, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O.XXXVII R. 2--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 79 & 117--Summary suit--Cheques--Dishonoured of cheque--Faisla/agreement between parties--Execution of documents--Proof of documents--Burden of proof--Onus of proof--Examination of witness--Documentary evidence--Balance of probabilities--On basis of this provision, it is clear that onus to prove contentions leading to issuance of two cheques lay on Respondent--Respondent in support of his contentions had produced written “Faisla” in original and had also examined two witnesses to document and hence prima facie requirements of Article 79 read with clause (a) of Sub-Article 2 of Article 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in terms of production and proving document stand satisfied--To my mind sole question before this Court therefore is as to whether on balance of probabilities such a discrepancy is sufficient to hold that Respondent had failed to prove execution of “Faisla” and issuance of two cheques by Appellant in his favour--On evidence in accordance with his obligation under Article 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat order, 1984 I do believe that Respondent has:- (i) proved execution of “Faisla” in accordance with Article 79 read with clause (a) of Sub-Article 2 of Article 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; (ii) proved issuance of Cheques; and (iii) proved that cheques issues were in fact dishonoured; Appeal dismissed. [Para 8, 9 & 10] A, B & C Mr. Zubair Ahmed Khuhawar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Nusrat Mehmood Gill, Advocate for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19.7.2023. Judgment This Appeal has been maintained by the Appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 6 May 2021 passed by Ist Additional District Judge Tando Adam in Summary Suit No. 25 of 2019, decreeing the Suit filed by…