2022 M L D 1955
Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)---
----S.118---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.84, 117 & 118---Cheque---Signatures, non-denial of---Recovery of amount---Suit was filed by the respondent---Petitioner's/defendant's leave to appear/defend was accepted---Petitioner filed the application for comparison of hand-writing on the disputed cheque which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Petitioner contended that he never issued any cheque to the respondent; that he issued a blank cheque to the owner of petrol pump as guarantee in lieu of purchase of diesel for agriculture purpose; that the petitioner returned the entire amount to the owner of petrol pump but he did not return the disputed cheque to the petitioner with mala fide and ulterior motive; that writing on the disputed cheque was fake and fictitious---Petitioner had purchased fertilizers from the respondent and in lieu thereof issued the cheque in question in his favour; that the petitioner in his written statement had admitted the issuance of the said cheque in his favour; that the petitioner would frequently change his signatures; that the petitioner could not advance any cogent reason for comparison of writing on the cheque in question---Validity---Petitioner had not denied his signature on the cheque in question---Burden of proof was on him to rebut the presumption and prove that the same was without consideration or by relying upon facts and circumstances of the case and also by referring to flaws in the evidence of plaintiff---Court was empowered to compare the signature/writing/seal with others admitted/proved---However, whether or not to exercise such discretionary power would depend upon the facts/circumstances of each case---Report of a handwriting expert on its own could not be made basis to discard the direct evidence and when direct evidence was available, there was no need for expert opinion, which otherwise was nothing but confirmatory / explanatory to direct evidence--
Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art.10A---Negotiable instrument/cheque---Direction for expeditious trial---Scope---High Court's direction qua conclusion of case proceedings within the time period---Scope---Direction of High Court as to conclude the proceedings within time, would not stand in the way of right to fair trial of a party to proceedings as guaranteed by Art.10A of the Constitution---Request for extension of time for compliance of the direction of High Court could be made provided the same was a reasonable one in the facts/circumstances of the case.
Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)---
----S.118---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 118---Cheque---Presumption, nature of---Burden of proof---Scope---Until the contrary was proved, it had, inter alia, to be presumed that every negotiable instrument was made/drawn for consideration; that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made/drawn on such date; and that the holder of a negotiable instrument was a holder in due course---Such was a rebuttable presumption yet the onus was on the person denying consideration to allege/prove the same---Defendant could discharge burden of proof placed upon him under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by producing reliable evidence showing that consideration had not been passed or by relying upon facts/circumstances of the case and also by referring to flaws in the evidence of plaintiff and then contending that presumption had been rebutted.
0 Comments