Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD vs NAZIR AHMED S — 2024 CLD 193 SUPREME-COURT

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

Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD VS NAZIR AHMED S. 4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17(2)(a)---Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 2(5)(b)---Promissory note---Proof---No requirement of attestation--- Non-appearance of second attesting witness---Inconsequential---As per Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a promissory note is required to contain four essential ingredients: (i) an unconditional undertaking to pay; (ii) the sum should be the sum of money and certain; (iii) the payment should be to or to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer, of the instrument, and; (iv) the maker should sign it---If an instrument fulfils these four conditions, it will be called a promissory note, and the requirement of attestation of a document provided under Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat,1984, does not apply to a promissory note---If an instrument, notwithstanding the provisions of section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is attested by witnesses, the nature and character thereof shall not be affected---It shall remain a promissory note and shall not be converted into a bond within the meaning of section 2(5)(b) of the Stamp Act, 1899---If a promissory note is not witnessed, and it does not appear that any third person saw it signed, in such a case, the best evidence is the handwriting of the parties---Attestation of the promissory note was not a requirement of law; the non-appearance of the second witness could not be made a ground for excluding the promissory note from evidence. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 193 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD VS NAZIR AHMED S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Summary suit based on a promissory note---Promissory note---Burden of proof---Proof---Circumstantial evidence, reliance upon---Initial onus to prove whether the promissory note was a forged document was upon the defendant; he discharged this onus by making a statement, on oath, to the effect that he was an illiterate person and had thumb impressed several blank papers for the plaintiff---Onus then shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the transaction was bona fide and that the promissory note was legal---Plaintiff stated before the Trial Court that he accompanied the defendant and the witnesses to the Court premises, where at the instance of the defendant, a deed writer scribed the promissory note, upon which the defendant had thumb-marked, and the witnesses had signed, and then he gave Rs.800,000 to the defendant in the presence of the witnesses---However, in his cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had no business relationship with the defendant or family ties with him, which raised the question as to why he lent a considerable amount to a stranger---Perusal of the promissory note in question showed that the blanks of a printed form of a promissory note were filled in with black ink, names of the parties and witnesses were also written with black ink, while the ink of the thumb mark (of the defendant) was purple---It was also clear that black ink superimposed the purple ink of the thumb mark, and this depiction elucidated that the paper was first thumb-marked and then written upon -- Fair and reasonable conclusion drawn from such circumstances was that the stance of the defendant that blank documents thumb-marked by him had been converted to a promissory note was correct---There was nothing on record to suggest that the defendant had, expressly or impliedly, authorized the plaintiff to use the said blank papers as a promissory note---Deed writer was one of the plaintiff's material witnesses, and he, in his statement, admitted that though he wrote the amount of Rs.800,000, but this fact was reflected in his register by pencil; he was confronted with the various entries made in his register in black ink and asked as to why he wrote the amount of Rs.800,000 with pencil and not black ink that he had used for the promissory note, and he had no plausible explanation to give in his cross-examination---Another witness of the plaintiff stated that the sum of Rs.800,000 was given to the defendant in the form of notes having denominations of 500 and 1000 in the Court premises---Again, this was an unusual act, because, normally, such dealing take place in private, where money can safely and securely be handed over and counted by the other party; this clearly cannot be done in Court premises, on the stall of a stamp vendor---Consequently payment of any amount to the defendant had not been proved---Plaintiff had failed to prove that the promissory note was not forged; therefore, he was not entitled to the decree he had sought in his plaint---Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 193 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD VS NAZIR AHMED Circumstantial evidence--- Scope--- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when it enables the Court to make reasonable inferences about the ultimate facts in issue; it must be more than mere conjecture, speculation, or guess. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 193 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD VS NAZIR AHMED S. 4--- Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 36---Promissory note---Admissibility in evidence---Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 provides that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called into question at any stage of the suit or in proceedings, on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped---Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided there and then when the document is tendered in evidence---Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, admits the document in evidence and allows the parties to use it in examination and cross-examination, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed---It is, therefore, essential that parties to litigation, where such a controversy is raised, must be cautious, and the party challenging the admissibility of the document must be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court---Court is also required to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case---So, once a promissory note has been marked as an exhibit and the trial has proceeded along the footing that the promissory note is made an exhibit, and has been used by the parties in the examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, then section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, will come into operation---In the present case as the promissory note had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it was not open to the Trial Court to exclude it from consideration while writing the final judgment, nor to the appellate Court---Admission of the document in terms of section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, cannot be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction---Appeal was dismissed.

Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD vs NAZIR AHMED S — 2024 CLD 193 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD