| Case ID |
3ad85fba-e6d6-4f74-8d8a-93e7b690e7e2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
High Court Appeal No. 62 of 2008 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 24, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the High Court found that the suit was not maintainable under the summary jurisdiction of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court determined that the document presented by the appellant did not qualify as a promissory note because it lacked a specified amount for payment. The court reiterated that for an instrument to be classified as a promissory note, it must contain an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money. The absence of a definite sum rendered the document merely an agreement and not enforceable as a promissory note. The court ordered that the appellant's suit should be treated as a long cause suit and proceeded under the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Code. |
| Summary |
In the case of Sindh High Court Appeal No. 62 of 2008, the court addressed the maintainability of a recovery suit under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The central issue was whether the document in question constituted a valid promissory note. The court emphasized that a promissory note must specify a certain sum of money and contain an unconditional promise to pay. The absence of a specified amount in the appellant's document led the court to conclude that it was not a valid promissory note. The decision highlighted the importance of clearly defined terms in financial instruments to ensure enforceability. The ruling has significant implications for future cases involving negotiable instruments, emphasizing the need for clarity in drafting such documents. Legal professionals should pay close attention to the criteria for promissory notes to avoid similar pitfalls. The court's ruling reinforces the necessity for precise language and explicit terms in financial agreements, ensuring that all parties understand their obligations. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
QASIM IQBAL, JUSTICE,
SYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Minhaj Farooqui
|
| Petitioners |
SAJJAD ASLAM GONDAL
|
| Respondents |
another,
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF GONDAL
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 330,
2011 CLD 952
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 1965 SC 634,
AIR 1926 Nag. 194,
AIR 1925 Oudh 560,
AIR 1951 Ajm. 71,
AIR 1957 Rajas. 360
|
| Laws Involved |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
4,
O.XXXVII,Rr.1,2,S.9
|