Case ID |
3b8b0b58-654f-4215-a09c-a7c7b77f79a8 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
R.F.A. No. 166 of 2005 |
Decision Date |
Apr 03, 2015 |
Hearing Date |
Apr 03, 2015 |
Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to rebut the presumptions attached to the promissory note, which was duly proved by the plaintiff. The court found that the suit was filed within the limitation period as per the Limitation Act, 1908, specifically under Article 72, and upheld the judgment and decree of the lower court. |
Summary |
In the case of R.F.A. No. 166 of 2005, the Lahore High Court dealt with an appeal concerning a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant, Abdul Razzaq, challenged the decree of the Additional District Judge, Vehari, which had ruled in favor of the respondent, Bagh Ali, regarding a sum of Rs. 40,500. The appellant's primary argument was that the promissory note contained a defective endorsement regarding the payment date, which he claimed rendered the suit barred by time. However, the court found that the appellant's total denial of the claim did not allow him to contest the contents of the promissory note that had been properly established by the plaintiff. The court also noted that the date fixed for repayment was valid, and the plaintiff's demand after that date justified the suit's filing. Ultimately, the court ruled that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the lower court's decision. This case highlights key issues in negotiable instruments and limitation laws, making it a significant reference for similar legal matters. |
Court |
Lahore High Court
|
Entities Involved |
Not available
|
Judges |
Amin-Ud-Din Khan, J
|
Lawyers |
Mian Muhammad Akram,
Abdul Khaliq Dogar
|
Petitioners |
Abdul Razzaq
|
Respondents |
Bagh Ali
|
Citations |
2015 SLD 2298,
2015 MLD 1575
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
Limitation Act, 1908
|
Sections |
118,
72
|