Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD vs NAZIR AHMED
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a dispute involving a promissory note. The primary legal questions presented for consideration involve procedural and evidentiary issues under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Specifically, the Court is tasked with determining whether a short cause suit can be converted into a long cause suit due to the alleged non-cancellation of revenue stamps on a promissory note, and the legal consequences of such partial non-cancellation. Furthermore, the Court must address the evidentiary requirements for proving a promissory note under Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, particularly whether the production of two marginal witnesses is mandatory when the scribe has already testified to the execution of the instrument. The Court grants leave to examine whether the attestation of two witnesses alters the legal nature of a promissory note and the extent of the plaintiff's burden of proof regarding witness production.
- Can a short cause suit be treated as a long cause suit due to the non-cancellation of stamps on a promissory note?
- What is the legal effect of partial non-cancellation of stamps on a promissory note?
- Does the proof of a promissory note require the production of two marginal witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does the attestation of two witnesses on a promissory note change its legal nature?
- Article 17, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Article 79, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI. J.---Leave is granted to consider inter alia the following propositions raised by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner:--
(i) Could the short cause suit be not treated as the long cause suit in the consequence of purported non-cancellation of stamps on the promissory note;
(ii) What is the legal effect of partial non-cancellation of the stamps on the promissory note;
(iii) Under Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was the petitioner-plaintiff obliged to produce both the marginal witnesses, when Bashir Ahmed, scribe had been produced as P.W.1 deposing that the promissory note, written by him, was signed by the respondent in his presence and the receipt thereto was also so executed; and
(iv) Did the proof of promissory note require production of two marginal witnesses after the promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 or as to whether the attestation of two witnesses on the promissory note would under the law change its nature.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL ALEEM BUTT vs Messrs BAHRIA FOUNDATION 2015 CLC 1144