AMJAD HAMEED GONDAL vs Raja MUHAMMAD ILYAS O — 2023 CLD 92 ISLAMABAD

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

AMJAD HAMEED GONDAL VS Raja MUHAMMAD ILYAS O. XXXVII, R. 2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 4---Recovery of money---Negotiable instrument---Effect---Suit under O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C. can be filed in respect of negotiable instruments which includes promissory notes as defined under S. 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 92 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMJAD HAMEED GONDAL VS Raja MUHAMMAD ILYAS S. 118--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Negotiable instrument--- Presumption--- Onus to prove--- Initial presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that a negotiable instrument/cheque is made, drawn, accepted or endorsed for consideration---Such presumption is rebuttable but onus is on the person denying consideration to allege and prove the same---Where execution of negotiable instrument is admitted, burden of proof of non-payment of consideration lies on the executant. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 92 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AMJAD HAMEED GONDAL VS Raja MUHAMMAD ILYAS O. XXXVII, R. 2---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss. 4 & 118---Suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note---Proof---Appellants/defendants were aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---Suit filed by respondent / plaintiff on the basis of promissory note which was Iqrarnama (Agreement), whereby appellants/defendants undertook to pay loan amount---Post-dated cheques were self-executable documents and suit was maintainable under O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C.---Iqrarnama (Agreement) was executed as an additional security in respect of same loan amount---Execution of such Iqrarnama (Agreement) did not render the suit liable to be returned under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C.---Procedure prescribed by O. XXXVII, C.P.C. was that appellants/defendants were not, as a matter of right, entitled to appear or to defend, but if they deserved to be heard, they had to apply to Trial Court for permission to appear and defend within 10 days of service of summons as envisaged by Art. 159 of Limitation Act, 1908---Till such time as leave to defend was granted appellants/defendants could not even file interlocutory application in order to agitate point of jurisdiction or to question transactions between parties or to challenge validity and legal effect of promissory note and crossed cheque issued by them in favour of respondent/plaintiff---High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as respondent/plaintiff established his claim against appellants/defendants through production of convincing and cogent evidence whereas appellants/defendants failed to controvert respondent/plaintiff---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

AMJAD HAMEED GONDAL vs Raja MUHAMMAD ILYAS O — 2023 CLD 92 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD