Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 369 2005 SLD 369 2005 CLD 978
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.204 of 1999, heard on 15-03-2005
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Ch. Mubasher Nisar Khan for Appellant. Iftikhar Ullah Malik for
Respondent.

RASHID UR REHMAN

VS

MIAN IQBAL HUSSAIN

Law:

Section:

(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--Ss. 4 & 13 "Promissory note" Impugned document, execution whereof though had been admitted by the executant; but promise to pay the sum mentioned in the document, was subject to foregoing the rights of appeal in the litigation Effect-Undertaking to pay in the said document being conditional, the Trial Court had rightly held that the document was not covered within the definition of "promissory note" as contemplated in Ss. 4 & 13, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Mrs. Doreen Barkat Ram v. Abdul Hakim Khan 1974 SCMR 84; Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Majid PLD 1993 Lah. 244; Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Nawaz 2001 CLC 318 and Bherulal v. Ram Rikh AIR (38) 1951 Ajmer 71 ref. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872) S. 28 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXXVII, R.2 ¬Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4 Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of promissory note Promissory note revealed that the sum was agreed to be paid, to forego the rights in appeal in the litigation Intention of the parties, when the document was executed, was to cause restraint on the payee to pursue the appeal in the litigation was evident from the perusal of evidence which was adduced during the trial Effect ¬Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings was void and suit under O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. was incompetent on such contract ¬Agreement which restricted a party, from enforcing his rights under or in respect of such contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary Tribunals of the country, would to that extent, be void unless protected by Exceptions to S. 28, Contract Act, 1872 ¬Document, in the present case being neither a promissory note nor a valid agreement, no suit on the basis of void agreement lay and the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the same. Mrs. Doreen Barkat Ram v. Abdul Hakim Khan 1974 SCMR 84; Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Majid PLD 1993 Lah. 244; Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Nawaz 2001 CLC 318 and Bherulal v. Ram Rikh AIR (38) 1951 Ajmer 71 ref. JUDGMENT SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. The appellant through this appeal has called in question the judgment and decree dated 2 2 1999, passed by learned Additional District Judge,…
🔒
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