Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 632 2004 SLD 632 2004 CLD 930
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 1 of 1995, heard on 12-06-2003
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE
Munawar-ul-Islam for Appellant. Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti for
Respondent.

ZAHID MAHMOOD

VS

MST. SABRINA IQBAL

Law:

Section:

Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--S.28---Pro note---Liability of "gent signing the pro note--­Scope---If there are words indicating that the person signing a promissory note did so for and on behalf of a principal or in a representative capacity, the person does not assume any personal liability by signing such promissory note. JUDGMENT This regular second appeal filed by Zahid Mehmood (appellant/defendant) impugns the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 9-12-1992 passed by the learned trial Court and 12-12-1994 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court. The facts, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are relatively straightforward. Mst. Sabrina Iqbal (respondent/plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,000 on the footing of a promissory note dated 3-12-1988. In addition to the aforesaid pro note, which is Exh.P.2, the respondent/plaintiff also relied on a receipt dated 3-12-1988 which was filed by her alongwith her plaint. The said receipt has been executed on the letter head of Muhammad Younus & Company (Registered) and has been signed for Muhammad Younus & Company by the Accounts Officer and by the appellant/ defendant. 2. The case of the respondent/ plaintiff, as set up in her plaint, is that the respondent/ plaintiffs' father was employed as Office Manager in Muhammad Younus & Company while the appellant/ defendant was also employed with the said firm as Export Manager. It is further averred in the plaint that the appellant/ defendant held himself out as a partner of the firm and had approached the plaintiffs' father for a loan of Rs.1,50,000. It was on this basis that the respondent/ plaintiff, on the advice of her father, advanced a sum of Rs.1,50,000 which is subject-matter of the present litigation and of the pro note Exh.P.2. 3. The appellant/ defendant, at the very outset, took up the plea that he was not personally liable under the pro note because the same had been executed by Muhammad Younus & Company and, as such, created a liability of the said firm alone. It is this defence to which arguments before me have been confined. 4. Both Courts below have held…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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