Supreme court New decision on promissory note.

The main point discussed by the Supreme Court in the judgment is the validity of the petitioner's liability to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000,000/- as claimed by the respondent based on a pro-note and a cheque. The court examined evidence including the agreement between the parties, the admission of liability by the petitioner, and the decision of arbitrators confirming the amount due. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner had voluntarily executed the pro-note and the cheque, and upheld the lower courts' decisions based on the evidence presented.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi

Ms. Justice Musarrat Hilali

Mr. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan

Civil Petition No.760 of 2024

[Against judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court in RFA 

No. 66727 of 2020]

Khizar Hayat

…Petitioner(s)

Versus

Malik Akhtar Mehmood

…Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s)

: Malik Matee Ullah, ASC

For the Respondent(s)

: N.R

Date of Hearing

: 15.04.2024

JUDGMENT

Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. Through this petition 

under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 

Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), the petitioner has called in 

question the judgment dated 18.01.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”)

passed by the Lahore High Court (“High Court”) whereby Regular 

First Appeal filed by him was dismissed. 

2. 

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the

respondent instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,000,000/-

(Rupees Sixty Lacs) against the petitioner under Order XXXVII 

Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on the basis of a 

pro-note dated 05.01.2016 and cheque bearing No. 36990267 

drawn on United Bank Limited in favour of the respondent by the 

petitioner. 

3. 

In this regard a decision of Arbitrators was also 

rendered which confirmed the due amount payable by the 

petitioner. The petitioner’s application for leave to defend was 

allowed and he filed written statement. After framing of issues and 

Civil Petition No.760 of 2024 -2-

recording of evidence, Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of 

respondent vide Judgment and decree dated 17.10.2020. 

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Regular First 

Appeal before the High Court, that was dismissed vide impugned 

judgment dated 18.01.2024. Hence, this petition. 

4. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 

impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it 

suffers from non-reading and misreading of the evidence therefore

the same is liable to be set aside. 

5. 

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 

and also perused the material available on record. 

6. 

Record reveals that execution of pro-note is admitted 

by the petitioner. In the agreement dated 07.01.2016, petitioner 

unequivocally confirmed that the execution of the pro-note and 

also undertook that if arbitrators decide the matter against the 

him, he would have no objection. This clearly indicates that pronote was executed against due consideration by the petitioner 

voluntarily. It appears that cheque alongwith the pro-note was

given to arbitrators for redetermination and reconsideration of 

amount due and once the Arbitrators confirmed the amount of Rs. 

6,000,000/- as due to the respondent from the petitioner, the pronote was handed over back the respondent alongwith a cheque

executed by the petitioner. 

7. 

Record further indicates that respondent claimed that 

he is entitled to receive Rs.60,00,000/- as a result of pro-note 

(Exh.P1) dated 05.01.2016 which obligation has been admitted by 

the petitioner himself vide his agreement dated 07.01.2016 

(Exh.P4) executed with the respondent.

Civil Petition No.760 of 2024 -3-

8. 

It is pertinent to point out that petitioner has neither 

challenged the decision of the arbitrators nor the agreement for 

appointment of arbitrators or execution of cheque and pro-note. 

Moreover, perusal of the testimony of the petitioner in his 

examination in chief clearly indicates that he himself admitted the 

liability to pay and voluntarily issued pro-note and cheque.

9. 

There are concurrent findings by courts below, this 

Court does not normally go beyond such findings unless same are 

perverse, arbitrary, fanciful or capricious which, in our candid 

view, is not the position in the instant case.

10. 

The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is 

well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of all factors, 

factual as well as legal. Neither any misreading and non-reading 

nor any infirmity or illegality has been noticed from the record 

which could make a basis to take a view other than the High 

Court. 

11. 

Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit is

hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.

12. 

Above are reasons for our short order announced on 

even date. 

JUDGE

JUDGE

Bench-II

Islamabad 

15.04.2024

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Paras Zafar, LC*/

JUDGE

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.