1987 PLP 3050 (MLD)

O. XXXVII--Suit for recovery of loan--Appellant defendant denying execution of promissory note and asserting that his signatures thereon had been forged--Evidence produced by appellant in support of his contention not confidence inspiring and appearing to have been prepared subsequently--Appellant failing to substantiate denial of his execution of document through an expert and his bald assertion with regard to alleged forgery and reasons prompting same not capable of carrying conviction--Held, case of plaintiff was duly proved- Interference declined in circumstances. Shahid Hussain Kadri for Appellant. A suit filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. for recovery of Rs. 24,000 on the basis of a promissory-note was contested by the appellant by denying the execution thereof and asserting that his signatures thereon had been forged. The matter was put to issue to determine 'Whether a sum of Rs. 24,000 had been received by the defendant upon executing the demand promissory-note as also its receipt and as to whether they were the result of forgery. Plaintiff examined 5 witnesses including himself in support of his plea of due execution of the documents and payment made thereunder to the defendant. They include a 'Petition-Writer the scribe of the promissory-note (Exh. P.1) and also two marginal witnesses of the receipt (Exh. P.1/A). In rebuttal, the defendant examined 4 witnesses including himself. Thereof, Muhammad Rafiq D.W.1 appeared with the attendance register of the Textile Mill wherein he is employed, to depose that on 20-7-1985 the defendant was present on his duty as a Boiler Engineer in the Mill but admitted that all the pages of the register, entries made therein and also the binding of the register was spotlessly clean and made in one hand and with one pen. He also produced a similar register relating to the subsequent period which, however, does not bear the said attributes. The remaining witnesses of the defendant, who also assertion only in a general way. The defendant, however, explained that since he had in company of others, lodged a F.I.R. on 16-10-1985 against one Muhammad Riaz for his having defrauded him and others into collecting substantial amounts from them on the promise of getting them Visas for Saudi. Arabia but he had subsequently compromised the matter with Muhammad Riaz and stood by it despite being pressurized later to back out from the patchup which, however, was declined by him, therefore, the plaintiff had forged the documents to file this suit against him for the purpose only of punishing him. He did not either allege any collusion between the plaintiff and the said Muhammad Riaz nor did he explain even as to why the plaintiff may have taken it upon himself to commit forgery and then file a suit against him. They learned trial Court, an Additional District Judge, considered the evidence and refused to accept the preposterous assertion raised in defence of the suit which was decreed by him on 14-4-1987 with the conclusion that the promissory note was a genuine document which had been duly proved by the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.

2. Record of the suit has been summoned and perused. There i little doubt that the evidence produced by the defendant with regard to his presence on duty on 20-7-1985, as borne out by the register produced by D.W.1, is not confidence inspiring and appears to have been prepared subsequently. Learned counsel, however, contends that the plaintiff had, at one stage, contemplated to produce a Hand-Writing Expert as his witness but had subsequently changed his mind wherefore an adverse inference was deserved to be drawn against him. He ha referred to the interim order dated 22-3-1987 recorded in this behalf which manifests that a demand of Rs. 2,000 as professional-fee by the Hand-Writing Expert in addition to his travelling expenses, was considered by the plaintiff as exorbitant and his counsel gave up the Expert as being not within the means of the plaintiff to get summoned. The explanation furnished for this purpose appears to be sound an since there is no law whereunder the plaintiff was obliged to get the documents proved by the evidence only of an Expert, therefore, n adverse inference can be drawn against him in this behalf. Under the provisions of Section 67 of the Evidence Act the documents were required to be proved by means of direct evidence which has bee provided by the 3 witnesses examined by the plaintiff and it was no necessary for him to have had resort to any other mode of proof o the documents. It was really for the defendant to have substantiate the denial of his execution of the documents through an expert which, however, he has failed to do and his bald assertion with regard to the alleged forgery and the reasons prompting the same is not capable of carrying conviction.

3. Case of the plaintiff has been duly proved and rightly decreed. There is no illegality involved therein to warrant interference. Hence dismissed in limine M.Y.H./D-21/L Appeal dismissed.