' This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-4-2002, passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the respondent's/plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,22,000, on the basis of pro note and receipt dated 9-4-1996, under Order XXXVII, C.P.C., has been decreed against the appellant/defendant with costs.
2. The plaintiff alleged in the suit that he had given the aforesaid amount as a loan to the appellant/defendant due to his friendly relations with the appellant. The suit was resisted by the appellant, through a written statement, by denying the allegations. It was stated that he was working as a Peon in the Municipal Committee, Jhang, he had not borrowed any money from the plaintiff and the plaintiff had obtained the appellant's signatures and thumb-impressions on some papers due to illegal pressure of the police. The appellant further stated that he came to know after the institution of the present suit that the plaintiff had forged the promissory note and receipt through fraud and misrepresentation. It was also stated that in the year 1993, his wife eloped with one Muhammad Rafiq and the plaintiff was siding with the appellant in that case and Ahmad Bukhsh, brother of the plaintiff, was the witness of the defendant in that case and the opposite side got registered a criminal case against the plaintiff and the appellant and others and accused, in both the cases, were challaned and as the appellant effected a compromise with the complainant side and divorced his wife, the plaintiff took it ill and got prepared the present pro note and receipt by way of fraud and deceit.
3. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ' Issues:-=-
(1) Whether the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the alleged promissory note and receipt is without consideration, if so, is the suit liable to be dismissed? OPD
(2) Whether the defendant's signatures and thumb-impression were got on promissory note and receipt by practising coercion upon him, if so, to what effect? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his work and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,22,000 on the basis of alleged promissory note dated 9-4-1996 by him as alleged? OPP.
(5) Relief.
4. The plaintiff appeared as P.W.3 and produced Bashir Ahmad, scribe of pro note and receipt (Exhs.
P.A and P.B) as P. W.1 and Mulazam Hussain, marginal witness of the aforesaid documents, as P.W.2.
The appellant/defendant appeared as D.W.1 while he produced Zahoor Ahmad as D.W.2. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, as mentioned above, vide its judgment and decree dated 16-4-2002, decreed the respondent's suit as prayed for. Issues Nos.1 to 3 were answered in negative and Issue No.4 was answered in affirmative.
5. The appellant as D.W.1 has stated that the plaintiff got his thumb-impressions on some papers through police and the pro note and receipt are fake and fictitious, but in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not go to the higher police officers regarding the aforesaid% alleged illegal use of force by the police. He further stated that he cannot deny that the thumb-impressions on the pro note and receipt (Exhs.P.A. And. P.B.) are of him. D.W.2, Zahoor Ahmad, was not present when the pro note and receipt were executed. His deposition is, therefore, irrelevant. The contents of the written statement as well as the deposition made by the appellant as D.W.1, clearly lead to the conclusion that the signatures and thumb-impressions etc. On the pro note and receipt are not denied by the appellant and there is no independent impartial evidence available on the record to show that the same were obtained by the plaintiff by practising fraud and coercion. Even otherwise the thumb-impressions and signatures on pro note (Exh.P.A) and receipt (Exh.P.B) stand proved through the statements of P.W.1, Bashir Ahmad, the scribe of the documents and P.W.2, Mulazam Hussain, the marginal witness. Both of them stated that the defendant (the present appellant) put his thumb-impressions and signatures in their presence and the amount in dispute was handed over to him in their presence. They have not been shaken in the cross-examination.
6. In view of the above mentioned, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs.