Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII, Rr.1, 2 O.VIII, R.1

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)

Section: 118

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118---Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of pronote---Issuance of blank pronote by defendant, plea of---Proof---Issuance of a negotiable instrument---Statutory presumption---Present appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the district court whereby a suit under O.XXXVII R.1 & 2, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- was decreed in favor of the respondent/plaintiff---The suit had been instituted on the basis of a pronote and receipt for the said amount---During the transaction, a cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- was issued, which was dishonored, leading to registration of an FIR---The suit was initially decreed, which decree was later set aside in civil revision and the matter was remanded for fresh decision---After remand, a written statement was filed, issues were framed, and evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was recorded, while the appellant/defendant declined to produce evidence---Upon completion of proceedings, the Trial Court again decreed the suit, giving rise to the present appeal---Held: Appellant/defendant admitted the execution of pronote and receipt in his written statement and even he had not produced any iota of evidence to establish that pronote was blank and even he himself did not appear in the witness box despite availing opportunities to produce his evidence---Respondent/ plaintiff established execution of pronote as well as receipt and even execution of the same was admitted, whereas, plea of appellant/defendant regarding issuance of blank pronote was worthless in absence of trustworthy evidence---Under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 a legal presumption of issuance of negotiable instrument (pronote) against consideration was attached to said document and appellant/defendant was placed under strict obligation to dislodge said presumption by producing affirmative, trustworthy and corroborative evidence but no such defence was available on record---Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.        Muhammad Arshad and another v. Citibank N.A., Lahore 2006 SCMR…