ALLAH DITTA vs NOOR AHMAD Ss — 2025 PLD 508 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.

ALLAH DITTA VS NOOR AHMAD Ss. 43 & 118---Statutory presumption in favour of a negotiable instrument---Scope---Departure from the statutory presumption --- Suit for recovery on the basis of pronote---Promissory note executed under conditional promise---There is an initial statutory presumption that the negotiable instrument is made, drawn, accepted or endorsed for the consideration and in a case to the contrary, the onus is on the person who is denying the consideration to prove the same---However, if the plaintiff presents facts contrary to the stated consideration on the pronote or which militate against the presumption then the presumption is lost/destroyed and the burden of proving the validity shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the pronote was executed by the defendant for consideration---In the instant case, the plaintiff himself pleaded that due to involvement of defendant's son, an FIR No.689/2018 with offences under Ss. 392/411, of P.P.C. was registered against him and the defendant being father of accused executed the disputed pronote and receipt pronote with the clear undertaking/promise to pay an amount of Rs.760,000/- to plaintiff if his son was found involved in the crime, and during the investigation police declared his son guilty---On the refusal to honor his promise the plaintiff was constrained to file suit against the defendant---The defendant completely denied the facts pleaded by the plaintiff---Held: There remained no doubt that the defendant did not receive any consideration for the pronote and receipt and the amount written in these exhibited documents was simply an imaginary figure which was not received by the executor---The alleged negotiable instrument was made or transferred without valid consideration and the negotiable instrument without consideration creates no obligation for the payment between the parties according to S. 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Findings of the court below were upheld/confirmed---Regular First Appeal was dismissed in limine. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 508 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ALLAH DITTA VS NOOR AHMAD S. 23---Lawful objects and considerations---Scope---Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872, also invalidates agreements if their considerations, objects or purposes are illegal, including those that violate public policy---Non-compoundable offenses are regarded as matters of public concern and permitting private agreements to settle such offences would compromise public interest and proper administration of justice---No Court of law can countenance or give effect to an agreement which attempts to take administration of law out of hands of the judges and put it in the hands of private individuals---This policy is based on the principle that criminal prosecution in non-compounding offenses cannot be compounded at the free will and choice of the parties which is not a private dispute between them but is one in which society at large is interested and any private agreement by the person ostensibly aggrieved, in return for a reward, to forbear from or withdraw or abandon the prosecution knocks at the root of criminal justice---If such agreements are allowed to be enforced by the courts, the doors will be opened to blackmailing on large scale---Therefore, the agreement to pay consideration for the pronote in the present case being the compounding of non-compoundable criminal charges was void in law---Findings of the court below were upheld/confirmed---Regular First Appeal was dismissed in limine.

ALLAH DITTA vs NOOR AHMAD Ss — 2025 PLD 508 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD