Rooh Ullah and another V. Matiullah and another,
CLC 2021 1998 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a dispute over two bank cheques. Matiullah sued Roohullah in 2012 for recovery of Rs. 700,000, claiming he had lent this amount to Roohullah as a loan, which was to be repaid within one and a half months. When Matiullah sought repayment, Roohullah gave him two cheques instead of cash, but both cheques bounced due to insufficient funds. Matiullah then filed a special summary suit for recovery of the money.
Roohullah denied owing anything to Matiullah. He claimed he had actually issued the cheques to a different person, also named Matiullah, in connection with a separate rice-sale deal that later fell through, and alleged that this other person and the plaintiff were relatives who conspired to misuse the cheques against him.
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, and Roohullah appealed. The High Court upheld the decision, holding that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, cheques carry a legal presumption that they were validly issued for consideration, and the burden was on Roohullah to prove otherwise. His claim about the "other Matiullah" was not convincing, especially since that person testified and denied the claim, and Roohullah never reported the cheques as lost or misused to the bank. However, the court also ruled that since the loan was given as "qarz-e-hasana" (an interest-free loan), the plaintiff was not entitled to additional interest or mark-up. Both appeals were dismissed, reaffirming cheque-holders' legal protections and clarifying
یہ مقدمہ دو بینک چیکوں کے تنازعہ سے متعلق تھا۔ مطیع اللہ نے 2012 میں روح اللہ کے خلاف 700,000 روپے کی وصولی کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا، جس میں اس کا کہنا تھا کہ اس نے یہ رقم روح اللہ کو بطور قرض دی تھی، جسے ڈیڑھ ماہ کے اندر واپس کرنا تھا۔ جب مطیع اللہ نے رقم کی واپسی کا مطالبہ کیا تو روح اللہ نے نقد رقم کے بجائے اسے دو چیک دیے، لیکن دونوں چیک ناکافی رقم کی بنا پر بینک سے واپس ہو گئے۔ اس پر مطیع اللہ نے رقم کی وصولی کے لیے ایک خصوصی سمری دعویٰ دائر کیا۔
روح اللہ نے مطیع اللہ کا کوئی قرض واجب الادا ہونے کی تردید کی۔ اس کا کہنا تھا کہ اس نے دراصل یہ چیک ایک دوسرے شخص کو جاری کیے تھے جس کا نام بھی اتفاق سے مطیع اللہ تھا، اور یہ چیک چاول کی فروخت کے ایک الگ سودے کے سلسلے میں دیے گئے تھے جو بعد میں ناکام ہو گیا۔ اس نے الزام لگایا کہ وہ دوسرا شخص اور موجودہ م