PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs BINYAMEEN SAJID S — 2024 CLC 1643 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2024 CLC 1643 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
CLC
Parties
MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs BINYAMEEN SAJID S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 56---C; S. 56; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Negotiable Instruments Act

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

Judgment text as reported

MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS BINYAMEEN SAJID S.56---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII Rr.1, 2 & O.VII, R.10---Recovery suit on the basis of negotiable instrument---Part performance---Payments received by the appellant in pursuance of different cheques issued from the same cheque books---Non-adoption of procedure of endorsement on the cheque before presenting it---Effect---Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act, 1881'), specifically provides for an endorsement on a negotiable instrument with regards to part-payment and thereafter the instrument could be negotiated for the balance amount---If the drawer and the payee of the cheque adopt the procedure given in S.56 of the Act 1881, then it would be open to the payee of the cheque to present the cheque for payment of only the endorsed balance amount, due to him---Without adopting the procedure as provided in S.56 ibid, the cheque could not be presented for encashment and suit under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2 of C.P.C. could not be filed, rather a suit for recovery of balance amount of cheque before a court of plenary jurisdiction has to be instituted---After receipt of part payment, appellant did not adopt the procedure as provided under S.56 of the Act, 1881, therefore, he was barred from presenting the cheque in question in the bank for its encashment and instituting suit under O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2 of C.P.C.---Proper forum in this regard was Court of plenary jurisdiction i.e. Civil Court for getting his grievance redressed---Trial Court should have returned the plaint under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. for its presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, obviously, keeping in view barricade of limitation---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English