2006 PLP 247 (CLC)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.

This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he granted decree in favour of the respondent.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of this regular first appeal are that the parties were enjoying cordial relations and had been doing business of collecting `Committees'. The respondent-plaintiff contributed an amount of Rs.1,23,000 as 14 instalments of `Committees'. As the respondent-plaintiff had to recover the last committee, as such, he was entitled to get Rs.1,29,000 as per settled conditions. The appellant-defendant had been avoiding payment of the said amount. Ultimately, a promissory note was written on 27-11-2001 in presence of witnesses. Thereupon an agreement was also written between the parties for referring the matter to one Saeed, who after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant was responsible to pay the said amount as agreed in the promissory note. Summons was issued to the appellant-defendant, who after service moved an application for leave to defend the suit, which was allowed, and consequently the written statement was filed. Controversy gave rise to framing of issues. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment, dated 1-4-2004 granted decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved of the judgment the appellant-defendant filed the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the authenticity of promissory note on the ground that it was obtained under threat and coercion; and that the agreement was a forged and fictitious document which did not bear the signature of the appellant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent in reply argued that heavy onus lay on the appellant defendant to prove agreement dated 27-11-2001, which he failed even to bring on record without any explanation. As far obtaining a promissory note through coercion, he denied vehemently.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. The promissory notes Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 evidencing appellant's promise to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,000 is admitted to have been signed and executed by the appellant but under coercion and threats of life. This contention is apparently not believable. The appellant did not B raise any voice or grievance for the alleged execution of promissory note under coercion before any forum. No report was lodged before the police. No suit was filed seeking cancellation of the promissory note. In his evidence he mentioned that Zafar, an A.S.-I. summoned him twice or thrice in the police station and secured his signatures on the pro note under threat. He admitted his signatures on Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. He also admitted that the last committee was payable to the respondent plaintiff. He further admitted that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,29,

000. His admission is reproduced in his own version: The appellant however stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,17,800 to the respondent-plaintiff. Payment was not witnessed by any person nor receipt was obtained. He however, conceded that as per condition No.5 of Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 the payment was to be made in presence of two witnesses by way of writing on a stamp paper. He frankly admitted of not initiated any proceedings before any forum to complain about the alleged act of obtaining thumb-mark/signature under pressure. He also admitted that he had not submitted any application to the superior officer of the A.S.-I. who made him to sign the promissory note.

7. The respondent-plaintiff examined himself as P.W. and proved the contents of the promissory note Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4. Marginal witnesses of the promissory note Hamid Mian and Nasir Mehmood Bajwa appeared as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and corroborated the stance of the respondent-plaintiff. The learned trial Court after examining all aspects of the case decreed the suit against the appellant, which does not call for any interference.

8. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is meritless and is thus, dismissed. H.B.T./5-440/L Appeal dismissed.