Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--------O. XXXVII, R.2---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25---Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note and its receipt---Execution of promissory note and receipt not denied by defendant---Plaintiff produced no evidence regarding actual payment of amount to defendant---Validity---Promissory note and its receipt executed 'by defendant being without consideration, were void and could not be enforced through Court of law---Plaintiff was not entitled to decree claimed in suit. Muhammad Ilyas v. Mst. Ijazan and another 1991 SCMR 1508; Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. Naseer Hussain and others PLD 1,995 Lah. 395 and Wali Muhammad v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others PLD 1989 Lah. 440 rel. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Shah and Ijaz Ahmad Janjua for Appellant. Jameel Ahmad Chohan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2005. JUDGMENT Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that suit of recovery of Rs.2,00,000 was filed by the respondent against the present appellant on the basis of promissory note. The suit was filed under Order XXXVII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that the present appellant obtained a sum of Rs.2,00,000 and executed a pro note and receipt dated 2-9-1999 before the witnesses for a period of one year, commencing from 2-9-1999 to 2-9-2000. This amount was to be returned positively by 3-9-2000 but appellant failed to do so and pro note was presented to him for the payment, to which he refused. Hence the suit was filed. 3. In the written statement, the appellant submitted that the respondent did not pay Rs.2,00,000 to him which was the consideration amount of pro note. It was further submitted that in 1997, Rs.2,00,000 were paid to the present appellant by the respondent at a monthly profit of Rs.4,800 and he had returned the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000 which he received in 1997 and had also paid monthly profit accrued thereupon and except for a payment of Rs.3,000 no amount was due from him. Further submitted that respondent offered to invest another Rs.2,00,000 for which the said pro note dated 2-9-1999 was executed by him. According to the appellant, though the pro…

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