Session of 21 December 2010
Civil Cassation Appeal by Cassation No. 161 / 2010

(1) As a rule, a cheque is an instrument of payment, and whoever claims otherwise than such an apparent rule should produce evidence for such a claim.

It is established jurisprudence of this Court that, as a rule, a cheque is an instrument of payment, and whoever claims otherwise than such an apparent rule should produce evidence for such a claim, and that the assessment of evidence and documents presented before the court and deduction of facts from the aforesaid is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first instance court, so long as its judgment is based on reasonable grounds, sufficient to support such judgment. In confirming the elementary judgment which ordered the Appellant to pay the judgment amount to the Respondent, the judgment appealed against based its jurisprudence on what it deduced from the claim documents that the Appellant was indebted with such amount, relying on the cheque produced in support of the claim, and using reasonable grounds, with bases established by the documents and sufficient to support its judgment.

(2) Blank signature of a cheque by a drawer and delivering it to the beneficiary indicates authorization of the latter to fill in its particulars.

It is established that blank signature of a cheque by a drawer and delivering it to the beneficiary indicates authorization of the latter to fill in its particulars. It is evident from the documents that the Appellant did not dispute his voluntary and willing delivery of the cheque, blank-signed, to the Respondent, and that the Attorney General Directorate had issued an order that no criminal case would be appropriate for lack of offence committed in the charge presented as No 4488/2007 – Capital City Security Directorate, that the Respondent filled in the cheque with false particulars. Accordingly, the pleading raised by the Appellant in this connection, as expressed in the two reasons of this appeal by cassation, is without appropriate basis in the facts or the law, and is therefore incapable of rendering the appealed judgment defective for disregarding such pleading, and failing to discuss or scrutinize it. The contention is therefore baseless.

The Facts:
On 30.6.2010 the Appellant lodged an appeal by cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal No 672/2008, issued on 4.5.2010, by a statement in which the Appellant applied for a judgment allowing the appeal in form, and the cassation in substance of the judgment appealed against by cassation. On the same day, the Appellant submitted an explanatory statement. On 11.7.2010 the Respondent was notified with the cassation statement and, at a session held on 2.11.2010 the appeal by cassation was presented before this Court at the deliberation chamber where it decided that the same deserves consideration. The Court accordingly fixed a session for litigations. At the session of 7.12.2010 the Court heard the claim before this Circuit as stated in the minutes of the session, where the attorney for the Appellant insisted on the contents of his statement. The Court postponed the issuance of the judgment to this session today. 

The Court  

Having reviewed the documents, heard the report read out by the Presiding Judge and heard the pleadings, and after due deliberation on the appeal by cassation which satisfied its formal requirements;

The facts, as revealed in the judgment appealed by cassation and other documents, may be summarised as follows. The Respondent brought against the Appellant the claim No 1410/2007 – civil – general – applying for a judgment ordering the Appellant to pay to him the amount of four million Riyals. He stated that such amount is owed to him by the Appellant who duly issued a cheque drawn on Qatar Islamic Bank. Upon presenting the cheque for payment the Respondent discovered that there was no existing balance capable of being drawn from in the Appellant’s account. He therefore brought the claim. On 30.4.2008 the court issued a judgment in favour of the applications of the Respondent. The Appellant lodged against such judgment an appeal No 672/2008. On 4.5.2010 the court issued a judgment dismissing such appeal and confirming the appealed judgment. The Appellant lodged against the said judgment an appeal by cassation, which was presented before this Court at the deliberation chamber, where it fixed a session for its consideration.

This appeal by cassation is based on two reasons through which the Appellant contends against the appealed judgment that it involved error in the application of the law, deficiency in reasoning and bad argumentation. He states that he pleaded before the Court of Appeal that he delivered the cheque, being the claim document, blank-signed to the Respondent as guarantee for a loan he owed to the latter. However, the Respondent filled in such cheque with false particulars, leading to a criminal charge No 4488/2007 – Capital City Security Directorate. The judgment appealed against by cassation disregarded such pleading, despite being essential, failed to discuss or investigate such pleading using one of the legally subscribed means of proving, and decided that he be obliged to pay the value of the cheque because he did not contend against or deny his signature thereon. Accordingly, such judgment is defective and should be subject of cassation.

This contention is inadmissible. It is established jurisprudence of this Court that, as a rule, a cheque is an instrument of payment, and whoever claims otherwise than such an apparent rule should produce evidence for such a claim, and that the assessment of evidence and documents presented before the court and deduction of facts from the aforesaid is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first instance court, so long as its judgment is based on reasonable grounds, sufficient to support such judgment. In confirming the elementary judgment which ordered the Appellant to pay the judgment amount to the Respondent, the judgment appealed against based its jurisprudence on what it deduced from the claim documents that the Appellant was indebted with such amount, relying on the cheque produced in support of the claim, and using reasonable grounds, with bases established by the documents and sufficient to support its judgment. It is established that blank signature of a cheque by a drawer and delivering it to the beneficiary indicates authorization of the latter to fill in its particulars, and it is evident from the documents that the Appellant did not dispute his voluntary and willing delivery of the cheque, blank-signed, to the Respondent, and that the Attorney General Directorate had issued an order that no criminal case would be appropriate for lack of offence committed in the charge presented as No 4488/2007 – Capital City Security Directorate, that the Respondent filled in the cheque with false particulars. Accordingly, the pleading raised by the Appellant in this connection, as expressed in the two reasons of this appeal by cassation, is without appropriate basis in the facts or the law, and is therefore incapable of rendering the appealed judgment defective for disregarding such pleading, and failing to discuss or scrutinize it. The contention therefore becomes baseless.

Therefore
The Court hereby dismisses this appeal and orders the Appellant to pay the costs and that the surety shall be expropriated.