Lahore High Court Dismisses Recovery Suit Based on Unverified Cheque and Oral Lease Claim – 2024 YLR 1810.
عنوان: لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے غیر تصدیق شدہ چیک اور زبانی معاہدے کی بنیاد پرآرڈر 37 کا دائر دعویٰ خارج کر دیا –
تعارف:
کیس کا پس منظر:
مدعا علیہ کا مؤقف:
عدالتی مشاہدات اور فیصلہ:
فیصلہ:
قانونی اہمیت:
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 YLR 1810 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Muhammad Asghar
Side Opponent : Sikandar Mehmood Dai
O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque---Assertion of the plaintiff---Initial burden of proof---Shifting of onus of proof---Scope---Claim of the respondent/plaintiff was that lease agreement was executed between the parties as he (plaintiff) had delivered a trailer/vehicle on Theka/lease to the appellant/defendant and then after the rendition of accounts an amount of Rs. 34,50,000/- was outstanding against the appellant/defendant and for payment of said amount he delivered a cheque to him (plaintiff)---Version of the appellant-defend ant was that neither he obtained trailer nor executed lease-agreement nor any amount was outstanding against him , instead there was another dispute between the parties for which he (defendant) lodged FIR against the respondent/plaintiff under the provisions of Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007 ---Appellant/ defendant assailed judgment decree passed against him by the Trial Court---Held, that in the plaint the respondent plaintiff had not mentioned the date, time and place when lease agreement was executed between the parties---Respondent/ plaintiff in his statement had also not disclosed the date, place and time when he approached the respondent/ plaintiff and demanded the outstanding amount---During cross-examination, the respondent/ plaintiff admitted that no lease agreement was written between the parties when he delivered a trailer on lease to defendant and there was no eye-witness of the said agreement---From the evidence it was clear that the respondent/ plaintiff had not been able to establish his claimed facts for which the appellant/defendant had delivered the cheque to him for payment---It was quite improbable that such a valuable trailer was given by the respondent/plaintiff to appellant without executing any written lease agreement---Witnesses of the cheque were not produced by the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court---Prima facie the evidence of respondent/plaintiff was not reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring because he was involved in an act against the provisions of the Punjab Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2007, and the said fact was confirmed by him during his cross-examination that an FIR regarding private money lending was also registered against him--- Plaintiff was to discharge the initial burden of proving his case especially when the plaintiff had undertaken to prove that the negotiable instrument (cheque) had been duly executed for consideration---Issue had also been framed in the case, which had placed the onus in that behalf upon the respondent/plaintiff rather he himself led evidence to prove the payment of the money through two witnesses and his own statement, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was precluded in law to urge in the present case/scenario that it was for the respondent to prove to the contrary---Respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his case as setup in the plaint and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and decree --- High Court set-aside impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and resultantly, the suit was dismissed ---Appeal filed by the defendant was accepted accordingly.