ANEES A. SHEIKH vs Col. (Retd.) GHULAM MASOOD QURESHI
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil appeal against a trial court decree for recovery of money, with the modification that the claim for mark-up was set aside due to lack of an agreement. The core legal issues concerned whether the petitioner had established repayment of a business loan secured by cheques, and whether the respondent's admission of his son's signatures on payment receipts constituted conclusive proof of partial repayment. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts. The Court held that an admission by a party can only serve as conclusive evidence if it is unqualified. Since the respondent satisfactorily explained that the signatures were obtained on blank papers for separate business dealings involving the supply of wheat and cotton, the trial and appellate courts correctly appraised the evidence. Finding no illegality, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Can an admission by a party be treated as conclusive evidence if it is qualified and satisfactorily explained?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence by lower courts can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does an admission of signatures on payment receipts automatically establish repayment of a specific loan where independent business dealings exist between the parties?
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-6-2003 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed with the modification in the decree, to the effect that the claim regarding recovery of mark-up has been set aside.
2. The petitioner obtained loan for his business from the respondent against which as security he issued 6 cheques covering the said amount on different dates. In the application for grant of leave to defend and also written statement filed after the grant of leave the plea taken by the petitioner was that he had received the suit amount from the respondent not as Qarze Hasna but for investment in his business which was to be returned along with Munafa. According to him the said amount with Munafa was returned to the plaintiff/respondent from time to time but he did not receive back the cheques at the time of making payments.
3. The trial Court after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove the return of amount, therefore, the suit was decreed for recovery of the said amount along with mark-up from the date of payment till the date of recovery at the rates prescribed by the scheduled banks.
4. Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed through the impugned judgment; dated 16-6- 2003 with modification that the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount on account of mark-up for there was no agreement between the parties against which this petition for leave to appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has repeated the same arguments, which were addressed before the Division Bench of the High Court i,e, that the dates on the cheques were not in sequence. He urged that though receipts produced as mark "A", "B", "C" and "D" and amount of Rs,1,00,000 was proved to have been paid to Muhammad Usman the son of the respondent and according to the other documents i,e, D/1 to D/19 and copies of Books of Account the return of entire amount stands proved.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that High Court after considering entire documentary and oral evidence produced by the petitioner repelled his contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent had admitted signatures of his son on the receipts Mark "A" to "D", therefore, an amount of Rs,1, 00,000 should be deducted from the decretal amount.
7. We are afraid the contention of the learned counsel has no force, for according to law admission by a party can be used as evidence of conclusive nature if the same was proved to be unqualified.
The respondent was fair enough to admit the signatures of his son on these receipts but he further stated that the said signatures were obtained by the petitioner on blank paper and subsequently the payments mentioned therein related to price of cotton and wheat supplied by the respondent.
We find from cross-examination of the petitioner that apart from the amount which was obtained as loan the respondent admittedly had been supplying wheat and cotton to petitioner's mill in respect of which payments were also to be made. The petitioner admitted in his evidence that he had made payments of more than Rs,26,00,000 from which it can safely be concluded that apart from this loan transaction there was also business dealing between the parties and the respondent had been supplying wheat and cotton to the petitioner and payment used to be made, therefore, the said admission of the correctness of signatures of son of respondent was satisfactorily explained which has been rightly accepted, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by Courts below which are based on correct, elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence.
' For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality on account of misreading or non-consideration of evidence, therefore, this petition is dismissed and .
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Akbar and other vs Province of Punjab through DOR, Lodhran 2022 SCMR 1532
- Khalid Mahmood and 3 others vs Umara Khan deceased through Legal 2021 YLR 391
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus The VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2017 CLCN 201
- ADIL GHANCHI Versus ROYAL GROUP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL MULTIPURPOSE) 2016 CLCN 146
- URFAN QURESHI vs Chaudhary SHOUKAT AZIZ 2012 CLC 1887
- Urfan Qureshi vs Chaudhry Shoukat Aziz 2013 C.L.R. 76