| Case ID |
39089c87-60d6-407e-9265-aebacbd96930 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 33725 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 08, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court allowed the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner, setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge which had returned the suit for presentation before the appropriate forum. The court concluded that the document dated 06-10-2015 met the requirements of a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It established that the suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was based on the pro-note, was maintainable despite the existence of a mortgage deed as additional security. The decision emphasized that the presence of the mortgage deed did not deprive the petitioner of the right to seek recovery based on the promissory note, affirming that dual remedies exist under the law. The matter was remitted back to the Additional District Judge for early decision on merits. |
| Summary |
In the case of Civil Revision No. 33725 of 2019, the Lahore High Court addressed significant legal questions regarding the enforceability of promissory notes under the Civil Procedure Code and the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, represented by lawyer Abdul Waheed Zaman Qureshi, sought recovery based on a promissory note amounting to Rs. 402,000 along with monthly profits of Rs. 24,000. The court analyzed whether the document constituted a valid promissory note and whether the additional security of a mortgage deed affected the proceedings. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the civil revision and confirming the validity of the promissory note. This case underscores the importance of understanding the distinctions between different legal instruments and the remedies available to creditors. The ruling reinforces that the existence of a mortgage does not negate the right to recover based on a promissory note, thereby providing clarity in similar future disputes. Key legal terms such as 'Civil Procedure Code', 'Negotiable Instruments Act', and 'promissory note' are essential for understanding the implications of this ruling. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Abid Aziz Sheikh, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Waheed Zaman Qureshi
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Zaheer
|
| Respondents |
Abdul Majeed
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 466 = 2022 CLC 264
|
| Other Citations |
Hatimbhai v. Karimbhai 1993 MLD 988,
Sindh Engineering and Bangle Works Hyderabad and others v. Habab Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 Karachi 38,
Messrs Nagina Cotton Industries and others v. Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan 1994 CLC 2281
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
| Sections |
115,
O.XXXVII, R.2,
O.VII, R.10,
4
|