چیک جاری کرنے والا شخص اگر وفات پا جائے تو اسکے ورثا
کیخلاف اس چیک کی بنیاد پر دعوی دائر نہ کیا جاسکتا ہے۔
جس شخص کے چیک پر دستخط یا نشان انگوٹھا ہو صرف اس کیخلاف دعوی
دائر کیا جاسکتا ہے۔
2022 M L D 1555
BUSHRA BIBI and others Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
and others
WP No.22594 of 2019
رقم کی وصولی کے لئے سمری مقدمہ--- قانونی نمائندے کے دستخط
کی اہلیت--- ذمہ داری کے لئے ضروری سگنیچر---اسکوپ--- جواب دہندہ نے سزا دینے والے
کے قانونی وارثوں کے خلاف مارک اپ کے ساتھ چیک میں درج رقم کی وصولی کے لئے سمری مقدمہ
دائر کیا--- ٹرائل کورٹ--- نے درخواست گزاروں کی ذمہ داری کے بارے میں ایک ابتدائی
معاملہ تیار کیا جو نہ تو چیک بنانے والے تھے، نہ ہی اس کی توثیق کرنے والے تھے اور
نہ ہی چیک کی منظوری دینے والے تھے--- اور یہاں تک کہ انکیشمنٹ اور ڈس آنورنگ کے لئے
پریزنٹیشن بھی۔ تاحیات سزائے موت کے دوران مبینہ چیک کا استعمال قانونی طور پر مدعا
علیہ کو درخواست گزاروں کے خلاف او XXXVII، آر 2، سی پی سی کے تحت مقدمہ دائر کرنے
کا مجاز نہیں بنا سکتا تھا، لہذا، مقدمہ ٹرائل کورٹ کے سامنے قابل سماعت نہیں تھا---
رٹ پٹیشن قبول کر لی گئی اور ٹرائل کورٹ کو درخواست واپس کرنے کی ہدایت دی گئی۔
Summary suit for recovery of money---Liability of legal
representative signing---Signature essential to liability---Scope---Respondent
filed a summary suit for recovery of amount mentioned in cheque along with mark
up against the legal heirs of the executant---Trial Court framed a preliminary
issue regarding liability of petitioners to be sued---Validity---Petitioners
who were neither makers, drawers, or endorsers nor acceptors of cheque and even
presentation for encashment and dishonouring of the alleged cheque during life
time of executant could not have legally authorized respondent to institute
suit under O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C., against petitioners, hence, the suit was
not maintainable before the Trial Court---Writ petition was accepted and the
Trial Court was directed to return the plaint.
ORDER
----------------------
---Briefly stated facts of the case are that on
27.07.2018, the respondent No.2/plaintiff filed suit under Order XXXVII, Rule
2, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.48,00,000/- on the basis of a cheque dated
12.09.2015 allegedly issued by Muhammad Yousaf/predecessor in interest of
defendants/petitioners who died on 30.11.2017. During the pendency of the suit,
the learned trial court passed the order dated 14.03.2019 whereby preliminary
issue No.4 (whether the defendants of the suit are not liable to be sued on the
basis of cheque signed by their father? OPD), was decided against the
defendants/petitioners. Through this writ petition, the petitioners/defendants
have challenged the legality of order dated 14.03.2019.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
parties and minutely gone through the impugned order and the available record.
3. Perusal of record reveals that alleged cheque was
executed on 12.09.2015 while the executant of the cheque namely Muhammad Yousaf
died on 30.11.2017 and the plaintiff/respondent No.2 filed suit under Order
XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs.48,00,000/- along with
markup against the legal heirs of deceased on 27.07.2018 wherein learned trial
court decided issue No.4 by taking it as a preliminary issue being a legal
question and passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2019. The moot question for
the decision of this petition is that whether suit for recovery on the basis of
cheque under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. can be filed against legal heirs of
deceased person who had allegedly issued disputed cheque, the provisions of
Sections 29 and 29-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are relevant for the
answer of this proposition which are reproduced hereunder:-
"29. A legal representative of a deceased person who
signs his name to a promissory note of exchange or cheque is liable personally
thereon unless he expressly limits his liability to the extent of the assets
received by him as such.
29-A No person is liable as maker, drawer, indorser or
acceptor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque who has not signed it
as such.
Provided that where a person signs any such instrument in
a trade or assumed name he is liable thereon as it he had signed in his own
name."
After plain reading of the above mentioned provisions,
there remains no doubt that defendants/ petitioners who are neither makers,
drawers, or endorsers nor acceptors of cheque and even presentation for
encashment and dishonoring of the alleged cheque during life time of Muhammad
Yousaf/predecessor in interest of defendants/petitioners cannot legally
authorize plaintiff/ respondent No.2 to institute suit under Order XXXVII, Rule
2, C.P.C. against present petitioners/defendants / successors in interest of the
deceased Muhammad Yousaf, hence, suit was not maintainable before trial court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is accepted and learned trial court is directed
to return plaint in the suit titled Nasir Iqbal v. Bushra Bibi and others (sic)
to the plaintiff/respondent Nos.2 under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. for filing
before the appropriate forum as the successors in interest of maker of the
cheque cannot be sued under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Parties are directed
to appear before the learned trial court on 14.10.2021.
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
