A. XXXVII, because of the consideration of the negotiating device and the initiation of the case, the defendant claimed that the payment was withheld from his account due to the loss of the check account which led to the trial. The trial was conducted after the hearing under Order XXXVII, Rules 2 and 3, CPC, which would require summary trial and procedure was different from the rest of the suit consideration and the reason for the origin of each claim. But in the present case he was also absent in which the plaintiff's evidence was. The silence that when and in whose presence it was issued a dispute check does not support the plaintiff's claim that there is so much money against the defendant because of insufficient funds in the dispute. The honor was not honored, but it was also referred to as a drawer. In response to his request to withhold payment from his account, the defendant said that on the basis of Chi, the criminal case had been acquitted, there was no evidence in record in connection with any business transaction / partnership between the parties. The plaintiff had made a clear statement that his checkbook was stolen by the plaintiff and his statement was not rejected The plaintiff failed to deny. The fact is, why and in what circumstances and for what purpose did the defendant inform the bank about the loss of his checkbook four months before issuing the check? Such fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff but he remained silent. The plaintiffs are not permanently settled in the cases but are changed in the same way. There was no burden or duty on the plaintiff to prove the case of the check when the defendant had ten
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
