Misuse of Guarantee Cheque and Rebuttal of Presumption under Order XXXVII CPC.
 |
| Order 37 & guarantee cheque |
ضمانتی چیک کی بنیاد پر ریکوری دعویٰ — عدالتی جائزہ
دیوانی مقدمات میں ثبوت کا معیار
کاروباری تعلق اور ادائیگی کا ثبوت
ضمانتی چیک کا غلط استعمال
فوجداری مقدمے میں دیے گئے بیان کی اہمیت
گواہ کے بیان کی جانچ
Order XXXVII CPC کے تحت دعویٰ
عدالتی نتیجہ
Must read judgement.
2025 C 1. C 1913
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAT ---Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD ASIF and 3 others-Respondents
R.F.A. No. 258 of 2022, heard on 23rd February, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
O.XXXVII Rr.1 & 2 Recovery suit on the basis of cheque Rebuttal to presumption of correctness attached to the impugned cheque by presenting a probable defence and credible evidence---Legality---Guarantee cheque-Proof-Business relationship, existence of--Statement of respondent in the related criminal case, relevance of Contention of the appellant was that impugned cheque was issued as a guarantee and was misused-Validity-In civil cases it is preponderance of evidence on the basis of which a dispute is to be decided, however, it does not mean that the conclusion in civil cases based on same set of facts is drawn mechanically, ignoring the crucial piece of evidence available on record such as statement of the plaintiff during the criminal trial, having direct nexus with the dispute--There was only one transaction, entered into between the appellant and the d the Manager of the respondent, in r ndent, in respect of which the respondent claimed that the impugned cheque was issued, however, the respondent side could not refure that the payment in respect of the said transaction was cleared through voucher, which showed that the impugned cheque was lying with the respondent side as guarantee on account of the admitted business relationship of purchase of wheat to secure any balance due and despite receiving payment in respect of the disputed transaction, the impugned cheque had been misused Regular First Appeal was accepted and as a natural corollary, the suit of the respondent was dismissed, whereas the suit of the appellant was decreed, în circumstances. onship
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2 Recovery suit-Re-appraisal of evidence Statement of a witness must be consistent with the circumstances of the case before the same is believed and relied upon.
Muhammad Masood Bilal for Appellant.
Ch. Waqas Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
Proceeded ex-parte for Respondent No. 2.