Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXXVII, Rr.2, 3

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)

Section: 4

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4---Recovery of money on the basis of pronote---Execution of pronote admitted ---Pronote whether to be treated as promissory note---Plaintiff had established his case on the basis of evidence both documentary as well as oral and the Trial Court decreed the suit against the defendant ---Validity-- Pronote could be executed to secure the payment of monetary obligations even where there was no debt or payment involved not necessary that payment should be contemporaneous with the execution of pronote-- Contents of the document would bring the document within the definition of promissory note---Heading given to such document was not legally relevant---Document forming basis of the decree against the defendant was in fact a promissory note as defined in S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, even though the same was described as a pronote---Provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, did not make a promissory note invalid, if consideration for execution of the same was not contemporaneous with such execution. Dates of hearing: 27th September and 18th October, 1999.                                                                                                                        JUDGMENT This appeal arises from a suit filed by Malik Muhammad Nawaz respondent against Muhammad Rafiq appellant for the recovery of Rs.55,500. The suit was based on a promissory note for the aforesaid amount and was, therefore, filed under Order 37, C.P.C. before the District Judge, Multan. The matter was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, who granted leave to appear and defend to Muhammad Rafiq appellant/defendant. The suit thereafter proceeded as a regular cause and both the parties led documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective…