Back
1922 Supreme(Lah) 58
Lahore High Court
Broadway, Abdul Qadir, JJ.
Mahomed Hussain & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Lal - Respondent
Decided On : 15-06-1922
JUDGMENT
1. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi for the respondent. It is to the effect that the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge are findings of fact which cannot be attacked in second appeal. It appears that the suit giving rise to this appeal was based on a pro-note. The defence set up was that, although the pro-note had been executed by the defendants, no consideration had passed. In the written pleas the defendants then detailed what they asserted were the real facts of the case, and alleged that no cash had passed in connection with the document. Subsequently, with the advent of Mr. Hukam Chand as representing the defendants a totally new defence was set up and it Was asked that the onus be shifted to the plaintiff. Objection was taken by the plaintiff's vakil and then Mr. Hukam Chand definitely stated that be did not press the application. It appears that, in spite of this statement, evidence relating to pleas set up therein was led but the question of onus was not re-agitated. It is perfectly clear that when a defendant admits the execution of a pro-note and pleads want of consideration, the onus is on him to substantiate his plea. The learned District Judge has in a very lengthy judgment considered every one of the various pleas set up and has decided every one against the defendants. His finding is clear and unmistakeable that the pro-note was executed for consideration. This is clearly a finding of fact behind which we are unable to go. We therefore, dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances leave the parties to bear their own costs.
