Find a Lawyer

KHAWAR PERVAIZ BUTT versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR QASIM AWAN

?0, XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 - Qunun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art, 17 (2) (a) - Institutional Promotion of Stamp Act (II of 1899), Sections 12 (2) and 36 Summary Summary Suits The basis of the note is the promise note noted by the two witnesses - the words "unless provided in any other special law" are included in Article 17 of the Law Sha testimony, 1984 Scope - Adhesive Stamps - Cancellation - Purpose - Defendant's contention was that the promissory note signature and thumb impression were obtained through fraud, and that the misrepresentation and promise clause were not considered and the signature of the two witnesses was not present. Trial of the case The suit was pronounced - Justification - the plaintiff confessed with his signature and thumbprint Promissory note - The promissory note or check was not required to be verified by two witnesses - Law was a common law, 1984 And the provisions of the Special Law, the Communications Equipment Act, 1881, apply to the present matter. The girl was obliged that in all cases the adhesive stamp should bear the signature of a party with this document ad The purpose of the cancellation of the adhesive stamps was that it may not be reused on another document. The provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, were not intended to deny the parties' rights and the beneficiary of the promissory note should be punished only on technical grounds - the defendant's note was accepted by the defendant without proof. Appeal was dismissed in circumstances, [pp. 51, 53, 57, 59] A, B, C, D, E, F&G

PLD 2017 Lahore 45

Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J 

KHAWAR PERVAIZ BUTT—Appellant

versus

MUHAMMAD TAHIR QASIM AWAN—Respondent

R.F.A. No.555 of 2009, heard on 23rd February, 2016.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—0, XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art,17(2)(a)—Stamp Act (II of 1899), Ss. 12(2) & 36—Institution of summary suit on the basis of promissory note—Promissory note notattested by two witnesses—Words “unless otherwise provided in any other special law” contained in Art. 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984-Scope—Adhesive stamps—Cancellation of—Purpose—Contentions of defendant was that his signature and thumb impression on promissory note were obtained through fraud and , misrepresentation and promissory note was without consideration and same did not bear signatures of two attesting witnesses—Suit was decreed by the Trial Court—Validity—Defendant had admitted his signature and thumb impression on the promissory note—Promissory note or cheque was not required to be attested by two witnesses—Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was a general law and provisions of special law i.e. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were applicable to the present case—No legal compulsion existed that in all cases adhesive stamps should bear the signature of a party to the said document—Object of cancellation of adhesive stamps was that same might not be used again on any other document— Provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 were not intended to deny the vested rights of the parties and to punish the beneficiary of a promissory note merely on the technical grounds—Promissory note had been admitted in evidence without any objection on the part of defendant—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances, [pp. 51, 53, 57, 59] A, B, C, D, E, F & G

Munir Ahmad Kahloon v. Rana Muhammad Yousaf PLD 2003 Lah. 173; Muhammad Shafi v. Sheikh Riaz-ud-Din and another 2004 YLR 1669 and Muhammad Hanif v. Kissan Dost (Pvt.) Limited 2003 CLD 224 ref.

Mst. Sajida Abbas Zaidi v. Syed Arshad Ali Jafri 1990 CLC 1018; Mirza Arif Baig v. Mubarik Ali PLD 1992 Lah. 366; K.M. Muneer v. Mirza Rashid Ahmad PLD 1963 (W.P..) Kar. 905; Arjumand Azhar and others v. Salim Akhtar Khan and another 2004 YLR 2368; Asif Ali and 6 others v. Saeed Muhammad 2009 CLD 1301 and Malik Liaqat Ali v. Muhammad Sharif 2009 CLD 1313 distinguished.

Qazi Abdul Ali and others v. Khawaja Aftab Ahmad 2015 SCMR 284; Abdul Rauf v. Farooq Ahmed and another PLD 2007 Lah. 114; Sheikh Muhammad Shakeel v. Sheikh Hafiz Muhammad Aslam 2014 SCMR 1562; Mst. Sajida Abbas Zaidi v. Syed Arshad Ali Jafri’ 1990 CLC 1018; Messrs United Bank Limited, Karachi v. Muhammad Ali Haji Kassim Ali 1987 CLC 2321; Hafizullah v. Haji Hussain Bakhksh 1990 CLC 603 and Habib Bank Ltd. v. Raza Sons and another PLD 1978 Kar. 425; Munir Ahmad Kahloon v. Rana.Muhammad Yousaf PLD 2003 Lah. 173; Muhammad Ashiq and another v. Niaz Ahmad and another PLD 2004 Lah. 95 and Muhammad Shafi v. Sheikh Riaz-ud-Din and another 2004 YLR 1669 rel.

(b) Stamp Act (II of 1899)—

—Preamble—Stamp Act, 1899 was a revenue collecting law. [p. 53] E

Mian Zafar Iqbal Kalanori for Appellant. Malik Mushtaq Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23th February, 2016.

online advocate from Kotri lawyer