Law:

Section:

(a) Stamp Act (B of 1899)-------S. 35---Instrument not duly stamped---Effect---Such an instrument is inadmissible in evidence and the same is considered non-existent in the suit in which it is tendered. (b) Stamp Act (B of 1899)--- ----Ss. 12 & 35---Adhesive stamps not cancelled---Effect---Instrument on which all the adhesive stamps had not been cancelled was rendered inadmissible in evidence. K.M. Mumir v. Mirza Rashid Ahmad PLD 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 905; United Bank Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Khaliq PLD 1988 Lah. 225: United Bank Ltd. v. Kurnool Muhammad, Muneer 1991 CLC 1758 and Mirza Arif Baig v Mubarak Ali PLD 1992 Lah. 366 rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---- ----Art. 45---Document admitted without challenge---Effect---Where the document was inadmissible and not a valid document, even if the same was admitted and exhibited, would not be looked into to establish the case on such document. (d) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Presumption attached to an instrument---Scope---Presumption is attached only to an instrument which is executed validly and required adhesive stamps are affixed on the same. Abdur Rehman v. Muhammad Usman 19$2 CLC 1128 arid Ch. Karam Singh v. Lal Singh AIR 1933 All. 109 rel. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XXXVII, R.2---Stamp Act (II of -1899), Ss. 12 & 35---Suit for recovery on the basis of pronotei---Pronote in question was insufficiently stamped and out of all 20 stamps, 4 denomination of 40 paisas each had not been cancelled at the time of execution of such pronote---Such pronote was invalid document and no decree could be passed on the basis of such document---Judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. JUDGMENT This judgment will dispose of this R.F.A. No.5 of 1989 against the judgment and decree, dated 21-12-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Khuda Bakhsh plaintiff/respondent (herein) had instituted a suit against . the defendant/appellant (herein) for the recovery of Rs.60,000 as loan from the appellant paid on the basis of a pronote executed on 6-6-1984. The…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492