1994 PLP 1941 (MLD)

Muhammad Ashraf respondent filed a suit against Bagh Ali appellant for recovery of Rs.50,000 under Order 37, C.P.C. on the basis of pronote (Exh.P1) dated 9-5-1988. Permission was granted to the appellant/defendant to contest the suit on 10-4-1989 and he filed his written statement on 13-4-1989. Mr. Javaid Nawaz Additional District Judge, Okara vide his judgment, dated 25-9-1989 granted the decree as prayed for. The same has been challenged in the present appeal.

2. Muhammad Ashraf respondent pleaded that he was running the business of commission agent in vegetable market Okara, the appellant/defendant was personally known to him as he had business dealings with him. On 9-5-1988, the appellant came to him, asked for a loan of Rs.50,000 with a promise to return by 9-8-1988. The loan was advanced and pronote (Exh.P1) got executed. In spite of repeated requests, the appellant had failed to make the payment.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant. He pleaded that the pronote was based on fraud and was void in the eye of law. He admitted his business dealings with the respondent/plaintiff as he used to bring his produce at his shop. However, according to the written statement, his thumb impression might have been obtained on pronote as his thumb impressions and signatures used to be obtained by the respondent/plaintiff on different papers to adjust the sale of his produce. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.50,000 from the defendant on the basis of a pronote? OPP (2) Whether the pronote is forged document and thumb impressions of the defendant was obtained on it with fraud? OPD. Both the issues were answered against the appellant/defendant with the result that the suit was decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioner have been heard and record gone through with their help. The evidence seems to have been properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. Muhammad Ashraf plaintiff (P.W.1) supported his case and deposed that he and the appellant reached Ilyas Rizwani, Advocate, in the Courts compound where a Munshi drew up the pronote after the amount of Rs.50,000 was paid to the appellant in presence of Abdul Hameed (P.W.2) and Ilyas Rizwani, Advocate (P.W.3). The appellant had put his thumb impression on the pronote in presence of the witnesses who had signed it. In cross-examination, he told that on 9-5-1988 (the day the pronote was executed) Abdul Hameed (P.W.2) was his clerk and he was a witness to the pronote. Noor Hussain was the other witness to the pronote. He himself appeared as P.W.1. He denied the suggestion that he had not advanced the money, had prepared the pronote fictitiously and the thumb impression on it was not that of the appellant. He was suggested and he denied the suggestion that as the appellant had stopped bringing his produce for sale to his shop so a false case had been concocted. He is corroborated by Abdul Hameed (P.W.2) and Ilyas Rizwani Advocate (P.W.3). The advocate was a notary public and he had made the entry of the pronote in his register. Noor Hussain (D.W.1) stated that the parties were known to him and he himself was working in the vegetable market. In his presence neither any money was advanced to the appellant by the respondent nor any pronote executed. He also told that he had worked at the shop of the respondent for one year. In cross-examination he deposed that Bagh Ali appellant was known to him since 4 years as he used to bring his produce to the shop of Ashraf respondent. He denied the suggestion that pronote (Exh.PI) was signed by him. He admitted that his name and address and the number of his identity card was recorded on the pronote. He denied that he had made a false statement. Bagh Ali himself appeared as D.W.2. He did not say a single word that as he had stopped bringing his produce to the shop of the respondent so a false case had been set up in the suit. He also told in cross-examination that in the last year in the sugarcane crop he had suffered loss and that he had been suffering loss for all times. He also deposed that whenever he was in need, he used to obtain Rs.1,000 or Rs.2,000 on loan from Ashraf respondent or his clerk Hameed. He further stated that he had obtained a loan of Rs.25,000 from Habib Bank 2/3 years back against the mortgage of his land for the sugarcane crop. He goes on to tell that when he used to work at the shop he used to put his signatures previously he used to place his thumb impression and even in the identity card he had placed his thumb impression. From this appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, it is more than proved that pronote (Exh.P1) was executed by the appellant and that he had received an amount of Rs.50,000 from the respondent. No fraud or want of consideration have been proved by him. The findings are affirmed.

4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. H.B.T./B-50/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.