Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 147/P of 1983, decided on 25th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Peshawar High Court dated 26‑3‑1983 passed in R.S.A. 14 of 1979).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII‑‑ Suit upon pronote‑‑Contentions that impugned judgment of High Court was based on incorrect inferences drawn from evidence and misreading of evidence ‑‑No evidence, found on record to support petitioner's case‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Nazirullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Safdar Hussain, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1983.

This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Courts dated 26‑3‑1983 passed in R.S.A. 14/1979.

2. Petitioner's case is that on 21‑7‑1977 Pir Dad plaintiff /respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mardan against the defendant /petitioner for the recovery of Rs.20,000 on the basis of a pronote, dated 30‑6‑1976. The suit was contested by the defendant/ petitioner on the ground that there was a bargain between the parties regarding the sale of 20 Kanals of land by the defendant /petitioner to the plaintiff /respondent for a sum of Rs.20,000 as the defendant/ petitioner was in urgent need of money. Subsequently, land measuring 20 Kanals was transferred by the defendant /petitioner through Mutation No‑20038 and the pronote, in fact, pertained to the sale consideration of the land and was not regarding any loan. The plaintiff /respondent, after the attestation of sale Mutation, was requested by the defendant/ petitioner to return the pronote but he refused to do so and ultimately filed a suit for the recovery of the said amount.

3. Learned counsel's contentions are that the impugned judgment of the High Court is based on incorrect inferences drawn from the evidence; that there was complete misregarding of the evidence by the learned Judge who ignored ample material on the record by which it was proved unequivocally that the pronote in question was for the payment of the amount of consideration of the land transferred by the defendant /petitioner through mutation No.20038.

4. We do not find any evidence on the record to support the petitioner's case. The pronote executed for consideration would not have been left without having been satisfied at the time of mutation in favour of the respondent /plaintiff. It has not been the case to show that the pronote was executed in lieu of the land measuring 20 Kanals transferred by the defendant /petitioner. Hence, this petition is without any merit and it is, consequently, dismissed.

S. Q. 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.