Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 2

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--S. 96, O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note---Application for leave to defend suit---Defendant, who executed promissory note and receipt in respect of amount received by him from plaintiff, having failed to return amount to plaintiff according to terms of promissory note, plaintiff filed suit against defendant who filed application for leave to defend suit which was allowed---Defendant admitted execution of pro note/receipt with the objection that said pro note/receipt was executed as surety---Defendant, in circumstances had admitted execution of pro note---Burden to prove that document in question/pro note, was executed by him as surety, was on defendant, but he could not prove that fact by producing evidence---Trial Court, in circumstances was justified to decree suit against defendant---In absence of any infirmity or illegality in impugned and decree of Trial Court, same could not be interfered with in appeal. Farid Akhtar Hadi's case 1993 CLC 2015 ref. (b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 118---Presumption as to negotiable instrument---Under provisions of S.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 there was an initial presumption that negotiable instrument was made, drawn, accepted and endorsed for consideration---Such presumption though was rebutable, but onus was on person denying consideration to allege and prove same. Haji Karim's case 1973 SCMR 100; Khalid Mukhtar's case 1996 CLC 741; Muhammad Boota's case 1979 SCMR 465; Muhammad Rafiq's case 2001 CLC 318; Muhammad Yousafs case PLD 1993 Lah. 244 and Muhammad Ashiq v. Niaz Ahmad PLD 2004 Lah. 95 ref. ORDER The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that appellant executed promissory note and receipt on 1-6-1999 and had promised to return the amount mentioned therein on demand. The appellant failed to return the said amount on demand. The respondent being aggrieved filed suit for recovery of Rs.300,000 under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhang. The appellant filed application for leave to defend the suit which was allowed. In view of the divergent…

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