Ch. MUHAMMAD AWAIS vs MUHAMMAD ALAM
The petitioner filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 20,000 based on a promissory note and receipt executed by the respondent. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge set it aside, holding that the promissory note was without consideration and executed under the pressure of criminal prosecution. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, affirming the finding that no cash consideration had passed. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully discharged the burden of proving the absence of consideration for an admitted promissory note. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court and the High Court—that no consideration had passed and the note was executed under pressure—were rooted in evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by the record regarding the absence of consideration in negotiable instruments.
- Whether interference by the Supreme Court is justified when findings of the High Court regarding the absence of consideration in a promissory note are rooted in evidence?
- Does the burden of proving that no consideration passed rest heavily on the maker of a promissory note when execution is admitted?
- Can a promissory note executed under the pressure of criminal prosecution be held to be without valid consideration?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner filed a suit against the respon--dent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Montgomery, for recovery of Rs. 20,000, on the basis of promissory note (Exh. P. 1) dated 10-5-1952 executed by the respondent for consideration received in cash as per receipt (Exh. P. 2).
2. In defence, the respondent admitted the execution of the promissory note, but he pleaded that it was without consideration and was executed by him under coercion.
3. The trial Judge decreed the suit in petitioner's favour but on appeal by the respondent the Additional District Judge, Montgomery set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit on the ground inter alia that the petitioner had failed to prove that the promissory note was executed genuinely for the consideration of Rs. 20,000, received in cash; on the other hand, it transpired from the facts brought on record that the promissory note was executed under circumstances when the respondent was under the direct pressure of criminal prosecution at the instance of the petitioner.
4. Lahore High Court also upheld the finding that the respondent had succeeded in proving that no cash consideration as alleged in the promissory note had passed to him and dismissed petitioner's second appeal, and he now seeks special leave to appeal.
5. Raja Said Akbar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had admitted the execution of the promissory note and the receipt and, therefore, the payment of consideration is to be presumed and the burden to prove that no consideration had passed to the respondent heavily rested on him which he failed to discharge.
6. After having gone through the record before us we are clearly of the view that the finding of the High Court that the respondent had successfully proved that no consideration in terms of the promissory note had passed to him is rooted in evidence, and since the conclusions of the High Court can be legitimately drawn from the record of the case, interference by this Court would not be justified.
7. For these reasons, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed in limine.