2006 PLP 599 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 599 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 599 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 599 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 599 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Ghulam Rasool Naseem for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note
Promissory note in question along with corresponding receipt of amount had been duly proved by plaintiff through two marginal witnesses on promissory note which bore thumb-impression and signatures of executants at several places on face of promissory note as well as on its reverse side
Said document having been proved on record, it was for the defendant to have brought evidence to establish plea of alleged forgery of signatures and thumb-impression on the document
Nothing in that respect was done by defendant either to get document examined and opined by an Expert or to place material on record for comparison and assessment of such question by Trial Court itself
Extensive cross-examination on behalf of defendant of threewitnesses of plaintiff did not contain any question for disproving defendant's subscription at promissory note
Pro note as well as payment of loan amount on basis thereof stood proved on record
In absence of any evidence of alleged fraud, Trial Court had rightly rejected allegation made by defendant in his evidence
Judgment of Trial Court not suffering from any infirmity or illegality, appeal against said judgment was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
This regular first appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore issued on 2-3-2005 allowing the claim of the respondent in a suit based on promissory note dated 18-7-2001 drawn by the appellant in the amount of Rs.1,25,000 along with corresponding receipt duly signed by the marginal witnesses. Before this Court learned counsel for the appellant has denied the promissory note forming the basis of suit for recovery as being a forged and fictitious document. In this behalf he read from the statement of the appellant as D.W.1 wherein he has specifically denied the signatures and thumb-impressions affixed on the promissory note. On the other hand, the promissory note in question, Exh.P.A. has been duly proved on record through the production of two marginal A witnesses. It bears the thumb-impression and signatures of the executants at several places on the face of the promissory note as well as the reverse the side thereof. The document having been proved on record it was for the appellant-defendant to have brought evidence to establish the plea of alleged forgery of his signatures and thumb-impression on Exh.P.A. Nothing in this respect was done by the appellant either to get the document examined and opined on by a Forensic Expert or to place material on record for 'comparison and assessment of the question by the learned trial Court itself. Indeed in this respect the extensive cross-examination on behalf of the appellant of three witnesses of the respondent does not contain any question for disproving the appellant's subscription of the promissory note.
2. The impugned order has considered the pleas advanced by the appellant on the basis of evidence on record but in the light of the fact that the pro note as well as payment of the loan amount stand proved on record it has, in the absence of any evidence of alleged fraud, rejected the allegations made by the appellant in his defence. Accordingly the judgment by the learned trial Court has not been shown to suffer from any infirmity or illegality with reference to the record of the case or the findings given. In the result this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-1386/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.