2022LHC4191
2022LHC4191
2022LHC4191
A 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE,
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
R.F.A No.90 of 2021
JUDGMENT
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent before this Court filed
Station Saddar Ali Pur the appellant gave a cheque drawn on the
get out of the rigours of criminal law and that on the scheduled
RFA. No.90 of 2021 2
date when the cheque was presented for encashment the same was
cheque drawn on the NRSP Bank for the said purpose. This
remained un-responded.
RFA. No.90 of 2021 3
instrument.
framed:
Issues:
witness box as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of his plaint. His
of PW-4 i.e. Branch Credit Officer of NRSP Bank who stated that
basis about why if the appellant had allegedly paid the amount of
the cheque in question and why even no suit for its cancellation
appellant!
9. The trial court noted that the issuance of cheque or for that
matter the cheque itself was not disputed and had in fact been
admitted by the appellant but who had failed to discharge the onus
the omission to retrieve the cheque was fatal and the only
that no payment had been made because the same could not be
money. The trial court also noted that the respondent on account
speak, and had discharged the initial onus of proof and which
could not be rebutted by the appellant and hence decreed the suit.
the cheque having been issued by way of guarantee did not find
favour with the trial court and rightly so because no evidence was
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also
learned counsel for the respondent. While the counsel for the
counsel for the appellant has attacked the judgment and decree as
been issued and that nothing had been received by the appellant
118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had not been met.
consideration or not.
another” (AIR 1933 Lahore 121) it has been lucidly held at page
consideration.
(AIR 1960 Rajasthan 237) wherein it has been held that the
16. In the matter before this court the act of the respondent
question.
to hold the field it would not only frustrate the purpose and object
of 'the Act' but shall also fail the object of Order XXXVII of the
Code through which the law, at least, gives a hope for recovery of
aptly noted that consideration does not always mean money but it
Karachi 274).
19. In fact the High Court of Delhi in “K.S Bakshi and Amr v.
State and Amr” 146(2008) DLT 125 has held that consideration is
20. Besides what has been noted above it is trite that according
and the burden to rebut this presumption lies upon the party
arguing that the negotiable instrument has not been drawn for
believe that the consideration did not exist . . . . . . . . . .”. This trite
the cheque the onus to prove that the cheque was issued without
what is also important in the present matter is the fact that after
cheque the appellant did not file any suit for cancellation of the
RFA. No.90 of 2021 11
is crucial and fatal to his case and attracts the law laid down by a
22. Dismissed.
“Gulraiz”
Judge
Gulraiz”