15. The third component of the issue No.1 is whether on 14th
October, 2007 the first defendant had received a further amount of
Rs.130,000/- from the plaintiff. It was maintained in paragraph No.3
of the plaint that a sum of Rs.130,000/- under the agreement was paid
to the first defendant on 14th October, 2007 in presence of the witnesses but receipt thereof was not obtained as the plaintiff had
been maintaining cordial relations with the first defendant. The
above stated assertion of the plaintiff makes the matter pellucid that
the transaction of payment of Rs.130,000/- was oral. The plaintiff
was, therefore, required to state in the plaint the date, time, place and
names of the witnesses before whom the transaction of payment of
amount had taken place. Such requirement was sine qua non for
proving the oral financial transaction. Though the plaintiff had stated
the date and place of making payment of Rs.130,000/- in the plaint
yet omitted to mention the names of the witnesses before whom the
said amount was paid to the first defendant, and thus the statement of
the witnesses could not be considered as per principle settled in the
case of Moiz Abbas1
and the conclusion would be that the plaintiff
had failed to prove the making of payment of Rs.130,000/- to the first
defendant.
Used in judgement of
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
2302034.3204-15
| 2019 LHC 190 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment