Maj. (R) MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD HAROON O — 2022 YLR 1583 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Maj. (R) MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS MUHAMMAD HAROON O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 2(4)---Summary suit on the basis of promissory note--- Execution of promissory note and receipt of consideration--- Proof--- Defendant categorically denied execution of the promissory note, accompanying receipt, his alleged signatures and receiving of consideration---Concealment of previous fact by the plaintiff---Effect---Statutory presumption attached with negotiable instrument---Scope---Held, that due to categorical denial by the appellant/ defendant, statutory presumptions, otherwise extended/claimed to the negotiable instrument, under the S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the present case, were of not much avail / significance--- Said presumption also stood damaged/exposed in wake of positive evidence led by the appellant, particularly establishing factum of an obvious withholding of disclosure of alleged promissory note, as in a previous suit for damages of the appellant having filed subsequent to the date of alleged execution of promissory note, respondent (defendant in said suit) had submitted written statement without mentioning existence of said promissory note---Such non-disclosure held substance while examining question of adequacy of proof of promissory note in question---Probability of its existence would certainly diminish, making it highly improbable for a prudent man to believe in its existence under the circumstances--- Even respondent's witness who purportedly issued a certificate confirming default of the appellant qua the amount claimed/ payable to respondent, affirmed that no information was disclosed with respect to promissory note in question---Preponderance of probability was against the plaintiff/respondent, hence claim on the basis of promissory note was not sustainable in law---Impugned judgment and decree suffered from gross illegalities and were unsustainable in wake of deficient evidence qua proof of execution of promissory note and underlying consideration---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Maj. (R) MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD HAROON O — 2022 YLR 1583 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR