| Case ID |
00aa8bed-52f4-4b16-a72f-8efa5f16a93e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular First Appeal No.47 of 1988 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 07, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 07, 2005 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent. The court concluded that the defendant did not adequately prove the repayment of the principal amount along with the alleged profits, and no valid objection was raised against the pro forma note's validity. Consequently, the respondent's claim for the recovery of the disputed amount was upheld. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of KHALID SAEED vs HAMEEDUD DIN GHORI, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on April 7, 2005, the appellant sought to overturn the trial court's decision favoring the respondent. Central to the dispute was a pro forma note under the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, specifically sections O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3, which outlined the procedures for suit recovery based on promissory notes. The appellant, represented by renowned advocate Mirza Manzoor Ahmed, claimed repayment of Rs.55,000 along with Rs.5,000 profit, supported by two cheques. However, the respondent, HAMEEDUD DIN GHORI, countered that the appellant failed to substantiate the repayment claims adequately. The evidence presented, including cheques from U.B.L. branches, was scrutinized, but the court found the appellant's documentation insufficient. The judges, led by MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J, emphasized the lack of objection to the pro note's validity during the appeal process. Citing precedents like Mirza Arif Baig v. Mubarik Ali PLD 1992 and Sheikhupura Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ch. Tawakkal Ullah PLD 1977, the court reinforced the importance of solid evidence in financial disputes. The decision underscores the judiciary's stance on enforcing contractual obligations and the critical evaluation of financial claims in civil litigation. This case serves as a pivotal reference for legal practitioners focusing on financial recoveries and the procedural rigor required in appellate courts. Entities such as Shibili Petroleum and U.B.L. played significant roles in the evidence presentation, highlighting the interconnectedness of corporate entities in legal disputes. The dismissal of the appeal not only affirmed the lower court's judgment but also reinforced legal precedents that safeguard the legitimacy of financial instruments in civil proceedings. For legal experts and parties involved in similar litigations, this case exemplifies the necessity of meticulous documentation and the imperative to challenge evidence comprehensively to succeed in appellate courts. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Shibili Petroleum,
U.B.L. D.G. Khan,
U.B.L. Quaid-e-Azam Road Branch
|
| Judges |
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mirza Manzoor Ahmed,
Malik M. Tariq Rajwana
|
| Petitioners |
KHALID SAEED
|
| Respondents |
HAMEEDUD DIN GHORI
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 1347,
2005 CLC 1353
|
| Other Citations |
Mirza Arif Baig v. Mubarik Ali PLD 1992 Lah. 366,
Sheikhupura Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. through its Honorary Secretary v. Ch. Tawakkal Ullah and another PLD 1977 Lah. 763,
Firm Sri Chand Sheo Parshad v. Lajjia Ram AIR 1939 Lah. 31,
Sohan Lal Nihal Chand v. Raghu Nath Singh and others AIR 1934 Lah. 606,
Abdul Haque and others v. Shaukat Ali and 2 others 2005 SCMR 74,
Binyameen and 3 others v. Chaudhry Hakim and another 1996 SCMR 336
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code
|
| Sections |
O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
|