SHAUKAT ALI vs ABDUL GHAFFAR S — 2026 CLC 30 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.

SHAUKAT ALI VS ABDUL GHAFFAR S. 118---Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984), Art. 129---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII---Execution of negotiable instrument---Presumption attached to negotiable instrument---Scope---Shifting of burden of proof back on the plaintiff on rebuttal---Scope---Lending of money as a natural human conduct /relation in asociety---Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Validity---In a suit for recovery on the basis of a negotiable instrument, there are certain presumptions attached to the same in terms of S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881'), as to the passing of consideration, date, time, etc---Such presumptions have been created by law, however, the same are rebuttable and it is for the defendant to raise a defence to rebut the statutory presumptions---The defendant in the suit, by setting up a probable defence, can refute the said legal presumption as regards the date and time of execution as also the consideration; the same can be established by evidence or circumstances of the case, which can be culled out from the mouth of the plaintiff and his witnesses or even from such other attending circumstances through which the Court can be shown that the passing of consideration is improbable, doubtful or illegal, or that the circumstances are such that a reasonable prudent man would disbelieve lawful issuance/execution of the instrument---Pertinently, the lending of money is part of human relation and of natural human conduct in a society, therefore, the same needs to be seen and viewed through the prism of natural human conduct---Statutory presumptions like the one attached to the negotiable instrument are based upon the natural and/or established human conduct---Given the diversification and inherent variability of human conduct, such presumptions have been made rebuttable---High / Appellate Court has to keep in sight the fact that there is an inextricable interplay of presumptions and burden of proof as existence of presumption shifts the burden of proof on the other side---The presumptions under S. 118 of the Act, 1881 merely shift the burden on the defendant to prove that the issuance of negotiable instrument was consequence of any fraud---In addition to the documentary or oral evidence, the defendant in a suit under O. XXXVII, C.P.C., can always rely on existence of certain fact(s) based upon the existence of some other fact to set up probable defence that concomitantly shift the burden of proof---Under Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 ('the Order 1984'), the Courts are empowered to entertain the presumption of certain facts to have happened in the common course of natural events and human conduct---Said provisions unambiguously read that the Court while deciding a case can look into the facts relating to the human conduct---Thus, the statutory presumption under S. 118 of the Act, 1881 can be dislodged by the Court itself to shift the burden back on the plaintiff to prove consideration and/or genuineness of negotiable instrument by presuming the existence of certain facts in consonance with the common course of natural events and human conduct---In the present case, admittedly, it was not a case involving business relation inter se the appellant and respondent, rather was one of money lent to the appellant (defendant) by the respondent (plaintiff)---Unlike the cases involving established business relationship between the parties, the cases involving negotiable instruments based upon lending money call for greater circumspection on the part of the Courts---For instance, where the relations inter se the parties are cordial and long-lasting and/or are those of involving trust in the normal and natural course of human conduct, such presumption as carried by negotiable instruments, under S. 118 of the Act 1881, would call upon the defendant to rebut such presumption with plausible evidence to shift the burden back on the plaintiff---However, cases where the parties are alien to each other and/or have strained relation to such an extent that they were involved in criminal litigation involving commission of heinous offence under S.302, P.P.C., a such presumption would subside by denial of the defendant because this was contrary to common course of natural events and human conduct that a person would lend money to someone whose close relative had allegedly murdered son of the lender---Respondent could not deny the factum of registration of the criminal case by him (respondent) against son-in-law of the appellant for alleged murder, however, took the plea that acompromise between the parties had taken place and the relations became cordial between the parties, therefore, the respondent agreed to lend money to further strengthen relations between the parties---Said contention of the respondent belied logic that when the respondent alleged that son-in-law of the appellant had murdered his (respondent's) son that he would lend such a huge money to the appellant even if matter had been compromised---Thus, the appellant had been able to successfully rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the pronote as a result of which the burden of proof shifted back to the respondent to prove that the pronote was executed lawfully and this crucial aspect of the case had been ignored by the Trial Court---High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the suit of the respondent was dismissed---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

SHAUKAT ALI vs ABDUL GHAFFAR S — 2026 CLC 30 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC