' Through this Regular First Appeal the appellant has challenged judgment and decree dated 6-4- 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang decreeing the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs,20,000 on the basis of promissory-note dated 18-5-1992.
2. Respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs,20,000 on he basis of promissory- note executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent on 18-5-1992. Upon receipt of summons under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code, appellant put in, his application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, rejected the leave petition and decreed the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the ground taken in the leave was that the parties had entered into a subsequent agreement dated 14-10-1993 whereby the amount of principal loan of Rs,20,000 stood adjusted in the manner that liability thereto was taken over by Sher Khan and appellant stood absolved. It is further contended that by "note" on the margin of this agreement, promissory-note dated 18-5-1992 for a sum of Rs,40,000 stood cancelled. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant had serious and plausible defence to urge, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, erred at law by refusing to grant leave to defend the suit.
4. PC was sent to the learned counsel for the respondent, but no one has appeared on his behalf, therefore, he is proceeded against ex parte.
5. The leave petition filed by the appellant admits execution of promissory-note for the principal amount of Rs,20,000 received as loan by the appellant from the respondent. The adjustment thereto was claimed on the 13 basis of an agreement purported to have been executed between the parties on 14-10-1993. Even in this agreement, execution of promissory-note and receipt of loan is admitted. The promissory-note was, thus, not without consideration and is an admitted document. Through this purported document of agreement, the appellant claims that adjustment of the demand promissory-note of Rs,20,000 was made in overall settlement of accounts between the parties in the manner that responsibility was admittedly shifted upon Sher Khan to make payment to the respondent-plaintiff and appellant was absolved of liability to pay the said loan.
Additionally, it is also contended by the learned counsel that in the margin thereof a note has been transcribed by the parties to cancel demand promissory-note dated 18-5-1992 for c Rs,40,000. The learned Additional District Judge, Jhang for the reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment rejected the story of adjustment of loan and cancellation of demand promissory-note by holding that purportedly agreement dated 14-10-1993 relates to some other transaction and so does the demand promissory-note dated 18-5-1992 for sum of Rs,40,000 because in the present suit demand promissory-note of Rs,20;000 has been sought to be enforced. I see no legal infirmity in the 'judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang. The note on the margin of the purported document dated 14-10-1993 has not been signed by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that this note is unsigned. While this judgment was being dictated, learned counsel for the appellant interjected and stated that since note is part of the agreement therefore, it will be deemed to have been signed. I am afraid, this contention of the learned counsel has ,no merit and cannot be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter.
' Firstly, admittedly, a photo copy of purported {{URDU TEXT}} dated 14-10-1993 was placed on record. Neither the original was placed before the Court below or before this Court nor was any request made to allow an opportunity to produce the original. Under the settled law photo copy is not admissible neither the same can be considered for any purposes whatsoever.
' Secondly, the original, if any, has been withheld by the appellant. Withholding of the original document which forms the basis of defence, leads to obvious presumption that the same has been deliberately withheld in order to avoid adverse consequences to the case of the appellant.
' Thirdly, in para.3 of the reply to leave application, respondent had termed the purported Iqrarnama to be fake and forged and respondent as plaintiff denied receipt of any amount of money from the appellant. It was specifically and particularly pleaded in the reply by the respondent-plaintiff that no such Iqrarnama was ever agreed upon or written or executed and that the story contained therein is a fabrication. And that Sher Khan has no connection whatsoever with the transaction between the parties. Despite this challenge to the genuineness of the purported document, appellant failed to produce the same before the Court below or even before this Court in the present appeal.
' Fourthly, note written on the margin stating that a demand promissory-note for a sum of Rs,40,000 made on 18-5-1992 has been cancelled by the parties. Even by visual comparison of photo copy, the note seems to have been written by a different pen, ink, hand, flow and in a different intonation and expression. Note does not match the main contents of the purported Iqrarnama. Furthermore, note has not been signed by any of the parties. As such, even if purported document dated 14-10-1993 is presumed to be a genuine document, the same has become totally unreliable by interpolation and forgery in the same.
6. In view of the admission of execution of demand promissory-note of Rs,20,000 by the learned counsel for the appellant in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and receipt of principal amount of Rs,20,000, there is no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff-respondent, neither has any such reason been urged at the bar or raised in the memo. Of appeal or in the application to appear and defend the suit. The ground of adjustment of Rs,20,000 in the manner stated in the purported Iqrarnama dated 14-10-1993 is unbelievable for the reasons stated in the afore-referred para.
7. In view thereof, no legal infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and decree dated 6-4-1994 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang. This appeal is, thus, dismissed as being without merit. Owing to absence of the respondent, there shall no order as to costs. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the respondent. Consigned to record.