HAMEED AHMAD vs GULAB KHAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court, which decreed a recovery suit filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the basis of a pronote. The petitioner admitted borrowing the amount and executing the pronote but claimed repayment and alleged that the suit pronote was forged, relying on an agreement and a receipt. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings regarding the failure to prove repayment—specifically due to the non-production of marginal witnesses—were sustainable, and whether a first appeal could be legally dismissed in limine under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were unexceptionable as the non-production of marginal witnesses was fatal to the defence, and that an appellate court is legally empowered under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to dismiss an appeal in limine. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Can a first appeal be dismissed in limine under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the non-production of marginal witnesses fatal to the proof of a document regarding repayment in a civil suit?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when no principle of law has been violated?
- Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLI Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The respondent brought a suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for recovery of Rs,11,00,000 (Rs, eleven lacs only) on the basis of a pronote executed on 15-5-1997. The petitioner did not deny borrowing of the amount and execution of the pronote but averred that he has returned the amount and that the original pronote was cancelled and the one relied upon by the plaintiff was forged. The trial Court concluded that the petitioner has not been able to establish his defence. The High Court has upheld the decree vide order, dated 29-7-2002.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal could not have been dismissed in limine and that in any case, the agreement dated 27-4-1998 (Exh.D.1) and the Receipt (Exh.D.2) sufficiently establish the repayment. He has relied on the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others PLD 2002 SC 720 to support the first contention.
3. The two Courts have not relied upon Exh.D.l and Exh.D.2 for the reasons, inter alia, that two marginal witnesses were not produced in evidence. Learned counsel for respondent-caveator has relied upon the case of Mrs. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others 2002 SCM R 1089 to fortify the above conclusion.
4. The approach of the two Courts has not been shown to be defective in any manner. Non- production of the marginal witnesses is fatal. The findings of the two Courts being concurrent, this Court is not required to review the evidence particularly when the two Courts have not violated any principle of law in arriving at the conclusions.
5. We also find no force in the submission that the first appeal in the Lahore High Court could not have been dismissed in limine. Order XLI, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the lower Court for transmission of record and without notice to the respondent. The practice of not dismissing the appeal in limine may be a practice only evolved by the High Court although in law, as noted above the appeal can be dismissed in limine The judgment in Muhammad Ibrahim's case (supra) does not lay down a different law.
6. No ground for our interference has been shown to exist. This petition is hereby dismissed and leave is declined.
Cited by 4 cases
- Muhammad Ashraf Malik vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and another 2022 YLR 2399
- M/s Colony Textile Mills Limited and another vs First Punjab Modaraba 2021 LHC 1774, 2021 CLD 1212, 2022 [M] CLR 1670
- Asif Saleem vs Chairman BOG University of Lahore etc 2020 [M] C L R 808, 2019 PLD Lahore 407, 2019 LHC 1620, 2019 PLD Lahore 407
- Qazi ABDUL ALI and others vs Khawaja AFTAB AHMAD 2015 SCMR 284