A couple of days ago, we uploaded a video explaining that we had lost a case in court. The reason behind that loss was a legal point on which we were arguing before the learned judge. However, the judge did not agree with our argument at that time.
Instead of accepting the situation without further research, we decided to revisit the legal issue and study it in depth. From the morning until now, we have been working extensively on the matter. We even purchased new legal books so that we could prepare a stronger and more well-supported argument to present before the court.
Based on the research we have conducted so far, we have reached certain conclusions, and today I would like to share those insights.
The Case: A Promissory Note under Order 37 CPC
The matter was related to a promissory note, on the basis of which we had filed a claim under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to recover our payment.
The judge raised an objection stating that the promissory note did not contain the thumb impressions or signatures of witnesses, and therefore it had no legal value.
During the hearing, I respectfully argued before the court that the witness who was present at the time of execution was standing before the court. I requested the judge to record his testimony. If the witness was lying, the court could even punish him. However, I submitted that a case should not be dismissed merely because of a technical objection.
At that point, I realized that the judge might not decide the matter in our favor immediately. Therefore, I requested time from the court so that I could bring judgments from superior courts supporting our legal position.
Legal Research and Consultation
Immediately after the hearing, I purchased legal reference books, including Mahmood’s books and the Law of Evidence, to examine the issue in detail.
I studied the concept of primary evidence and documentary evidence, particularly focusing on negotiable instruments, including promissory notes.
When I analyzed Order 37 CPC and the relevant legal principles governing promissory notes, it became clear that our legal argument was correct and legally valid.
Essential Elements of a Promissory Note
During my research, I came across a judgment explaining that a valid promissory note requires four essential conditions:
- An unconditional undertaking to pay
- A certain sum of money must be specified
- Payment must be made to a specific person or to the order of a person
- The maker of the instrument must sign the document
These are the four essential legal requirements of a promissory note.
Notably, none of these conditions require the signatures or thumb impressions of witnesses.
Important Legal Principle
While studying further, I found an important legal principle under Section 629(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which states that:
A promissory note or cheque, being a negotiable instrument, does not require attestation by witnesses in order to be valid.
This is a very significant point.
It means that even if no witness signs the promissory note, the document can still be legally valid and enforceable.
Therefore, the absence of witness signatures cannot automatically lead to the dismissal of the case.
Misunderstanding about Witness Requirements
I also examined the concept of attestation under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which generally requires two witnesses to prove certain documents.
However, the law clarifies that promissory notes and similar negotiable instruments are not covered under Article 17 for attestation purposes.
Furthermore, when claims are filed under Order 37 CPC, the strict witness requirements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order do not apply in the same manner.
This means that the absence of witnesses does not invalidate a promissory note.
The Lesson for Lawyers
The purpose of making this video and sharing this discussion is to convey an important message to my fellow lawyers.
When you are arguing a legal point in court, sometimes you may lose temporarily. But that does not necessarily mean your legal position is wrong.
If your argument is based on sound legal principles, proper research, and relevant judgments, then in the long run your point will be heard and appreciated.
As lawyers, we do not simply walk into court unprepared. We conduct thorough legal research, consult authoritative books, analyze case law, and review legal databases.
In this particular matter, we even took assistance from modern research tools, including ChatGPT, along with traditional legal resources such as PLD and SLD case law databases.
After carefully reviewing all the material, the conclusion remains clear: our legal argument is correct.
Final Thoughts
To all my fellow lawyers: never assume that the judge’s initial observation is the final word. If your legal reasoning is strong and supported by law, you have every right to present your argument.
The courts exist to uphold natural justice and the rule of law. If you believe that the law is being misinterpreted, you must confidently present your case along with proper legal authorities.
With that, I will conclude this discussion.