Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 3

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXXXVII, R.3---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118---Suit in summary jurisdiction---Leave to appear and defend suit---Presumption relating to negotiable instruments---Burden of proof on failure of consideration-- Presumption of law under provision of S.118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 relating to rule of evidence, envisaged that negotiable instrument was made for consideration---Burden of proof on failure of consideration was on plaintiff to prove that cheque in question, was issued by defendant or pronote was executed by him---Issuance of cheque or execution of pronote when prove, rule of presumption laid down in S. 118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, would help plaintiff to shift burden to defendants who could adduce direct evidence to prove that cheque in question, was not supported on consideration, and on his adducing acceptable evidence; burden would again shift to plaintiff---Defendant's plea that cheque in question, was not issued for consideration was a plausible defence in circumstances---Even, where defence seemed to be illusory or sham, defendant could still be granted leave on terms---Defence being put forth that cheque in question, was given as security, even if seemed to be illusory, yet defendants ought to be enabled to prove the same---Plaintiffs counsel conceded that on conditional leave to defend suit being granted to defendant he had no objection--- Defendant was granted leave to appear and defend suit on condition of furnishing security for the amount being claimed in suit by plaintiff, within specified time. Abdul Karim Jaffarani v. United Bank Ltd. and 2 others 1984 S C M R 568 and Messrs Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd v. Messrs Gharo Textile Mills Ltd P L D 1986 Kar. 157 (2) ref. Munir A. Malik for Appellant. Syed Ishtiaq Ali for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 15th and 16th January, 1991. JUDGMENT   SPED RAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.---This High Court Appeal arises out of judgment dated 29-9-1987 passed in Suit No.236 of 1987 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has decreed the suit. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the above suit was filed for…