2026 PLP 305 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.

Through this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality of judgment and decree dated 14.03.2019, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore who decreed the suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- filed by the respondent on the basis of pronote as prayed for.

2. Brief facts of this appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- against the appellant/defendant on the basis of pronote and receipt contending therein that the appellant was close friend of the respondent. Appellant persuaded the respondent/plaintiff to invest amount in the property business as well as for the establishment of oil mills. The appellant received Rs.45,00,000/- from the respondent and executed pronote of the said amount to in the presence of witnesses. Appellant issued a cheque amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/plaintiff which was dishonoured which followed by lodging of an FIR No.484/2004 under Section 489-F, P.P.C against the appellant. Respondent time and again asked the appellant to pay the suit amount but he refused which resulted into filing of the suit. The trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010. Appellant challenged the said decree, through Civil Revision No.2749/2010 in which judgment and decree was set aside and matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision. Appellant filed contesting written statement on 26.01.2017. The trial court framed issues and recorded the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff whereas the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant made statement on 07.02.2019 that the appellant/defendant does not want to produce his evidence. The trial court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2019. Hence, this Appeal.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. The main controversy revolves around issue No.5 which is reproduced as under:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- on the basis of promissory/pronote on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP In order to dislodge the initial onus of the above issue, the plaintiff appeared as PW1 who stated that he has friendly relation with the defendant. Defendant convinced him for installation of factory after purchasing some land. He gave rupees one Million to the defendant in the presence of witnesses against receipt dated 24.03.2011 (Exh.P1) and remaining amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was given to the defendant in cash for purchase of the land, machinery for establishment of mill. Defendant fraudulently showed purchasing of the land for factory from the said amount but no such transaction was done in this regard and he committed fraud with him. By admitting his guilt, defendant executed agreement (Ex.P-2) in favour of the plaintiff regarding the amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. The plaintiff demanded his above amount and the defendant in lieu of said amount, executed a promissory note (Ex.P-3) and receipt (Ex.P-4) in his favour. Defendant endorsed his signatures and thumb impression on Exh.P3 and Exh.P4 in the presence of witnesses. Witnesses also signed Exh.P4 in his presence. Beside lent amount of one million (Exh.P1), he has yet to receive another amount of Rupees two Million from the defendant and for this reason defendant issued a cheque dated 25.04.2004 in his favour and said cheque was also dishonoured. He lodged FIR No.484/2004 against the defendant under Section 489-F, P.P.C. Naveed Akbar Butt appeared as PW2 who supported the version of the respondent/plaintiff. Whereas learned counsel for the appellant/defendant got recorded his statement that the defendant does not want to produce his evidence.

5. Appellant admitted the execution of pronote and receipt in his written statement and even he has not produced any iota of evidence to establish that pronote was blank and even the appellant himself did not bother to appear in the witness box despite availing opportunities to produce his evidence rather his counsel got recorded statement on 07.02.2019 that defendant does not want to produce any evidence. It is well established principle of law that the averments made in the written statement are to be proved through cogent evidence and if a party does not produce evidence to support the contents of its written statement, such averments cannot be treated as evidence. Reliance is placed on cases cited as Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others (PLD 2010 SC 604) and Muhammad Noor Alam v. Zair Hussain and 3 others (1988 MLD 1122). Respondent/plaintiff has established the execution of pronote as well as receipt whereof through producing witness of the instrument even though the execution of pronote and receipt whereof was admitted by the appellant/defendant himself, as such the plea of the appellant/defendant regarding issuance of blank pronote note is worthless in absence of trustworthy evidence of the appellant/defendant.

6. Furthermore, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a legal presumption of issuance of negotiable instrument (pronote) against consideration is attached to said document and the appellant was placed under strict obligation to dislodge said presumption by producing affirmative, trustworthy and corroborative evidence but no such defence evidence is available on the record and even appellant failed to trace out any infirmity in the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, as such the appellant has miserably failed to prove his defensive assertion. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases titled as Muhammad Arshad and another v. Citibank N.A. Lahore (2006 SCMR 1347), Muhammad Azizur Rehman v. Liaquat Ali (2007 SCMR 1820), Najaf Iqbal v. Shahzad Rafique (2020 SCMR 1621), Rab Nawaz Khan v. Javed Khan Swati (2021 SCMR 1890) and Rab Nawaz Khan v. Javed Khan Swati (2021 CLD 1261).

7. Respondent/plaintiff through corroborative and trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence has successfully proved his claim which was rightly decreed by the trial Court through sound reasons, as such these just findings do not require any indulgence from this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any illegality and material irregularity, in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court, which does not call for any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

9. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to cost. UN/M-208/L ???