Citation Name: 2024 PLD 18 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUHAMMAD AYUB S

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

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 18 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL GHAFFAR VS MUHAMMAD AYUB S. 118---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 60---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of promissory notes---Document, execution of---Proof---Presumption---Denial by the defendant---Comparison of signatures---Claim of the appellant/plaintiff was that on the request of respondents/defendants he arranged a loan of ten million rupees for which a guarantee agreement and promissory notes were executed---Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove execution of alleged documents---Validity---Record revealed that respondents had strongly denied the execution of both the agreement and promissory notes so much so that they filed an application under Art. 60 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for analysis of documents from the Forensic Science Lab ('the FSL'), in which regard, in the opinion of expert, (appellant') asserted signatures (in Urdu as well as in English) of both the respondents did not tally with the specimen/routine signatures supplied by them---Although the initial presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881') that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn, or accepted or endorsed for consideration, yet the said presumption was rebuttable, but in the present case, the respondents had straight away denied the execution of alleged promissory notes, therefore, the appellant had to discharge the said burden that the promissory notes had been duly executed and signed by the respondents---Opinion by the FSL after analysis of documents created serious doubts regarding execution of the promissory notes---Appellant had failed to prove payment to the respondents and execution of promissory notes---Contents of the promissory notes read that payment in millions was made, surprisingly, "in cash" at Court premises (Katchehri), therefore, the complete edifice upon which the appellant had built his case stood crumbled---Even alleged agreement having been exhibited by the appellant was not notarized in accordance with applicable laws which created another doubt regarding its authenticity---Even the Oath Commissioner, who according to the appellant had attested promissory notes, was not produced---Appellant also failed to prove his source and capacity to make payment, therefore, the presumption contained in S. 118 of the Act, 1881 stood rebutted---No infirmity in reasoning and no perversity in interpretation of relevant provisions of law had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 18 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUHAMMAD AYUB S — 2024 PLD 18 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD