Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14‑2‑1975 in R. S. A. No. 644 of 1962).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

--Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑‑Findings of High Court as to respon dent having successfully proved no consideration in terms of pronote having passed to him rooted in evidence and conclusions of High Court legitimately drawn from record of case. interference by Supreme Court, held, not justifiable.

Raja Said Akbar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1980.

‑The petitioner filed a suit against the respon dent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Montgomery, for recovery of Rs. 20,000, on the basis of promissory note (Exh. P. 1) dated 10‑5‑1952 executed by the respondent for consideration received in cash as per receipt (Exh. P. 2). In defence, the respondent admitted the execution of the promissory note, but he pleaded that it was without consideration and was executed by him under coercion.

The trial Judge decreed the suit in petitioner's favour but on appeal by the respondent the Additional District Judge, Montgomery set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit on the ground inter alia that the petitioner had failed to prove that the promissory note was executed genuinely for the consideration of Rs. 20,000, received in cash; on the other hand, it transpired from the facts brought on record that the promissory note was executed under circumstances when the respondent was under the direct pressure of criminal prosecution at the instance of the petitioner. Lahore High Court also upheld the finding that the respondent had succeeded in proving that no cash consideration as alleged in the promissory note had passed to him and dismissed petitioner's second appeal, and he now seeks special leave to appeal.

Raja Said Akbar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had admitted the execution of the promissory note and the receipt and, therefore, the payment of consideration is to be presumed and the burden to prove that no consideration had passed to the respondent heavily rested on him which he failed to discharge.

After having gone through the record before us we are clearly of the view that the finding of the High Court that the respondent had successfully proved that no consideration in terms of the promissory note had passed to him is rooted in evidence, and since the conclusions of the High Court can be legitimately drawn from the record of the case, interference by this Court would not be justified.

For these reasons, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.