' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of Rs, 11,00,270 on 2-4-1989 on the basis of a pronote dated 9-4-1986 by pleading that the said amount was paid by him in cash to the defendant/ respondent. The defendant entered appearance and sought permission to leave to defend the suit, the same was granted. After the settlement of issues and recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 14-1-1996 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, hence this appeal.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the execution of the impugned pronote is admitted by the defendant, while the payment of the disputed amount is established from the statements of P.W.1 Riaz Hussain and P.W.2 Izkar Ahmad read with statement of Ali Ahmad, Special Attorney of the appellant. Therefore, no doubt- was left in the case and the same deserved to be decreed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant contends that no doubt the execution of the pronote is not denied by the defendant but at the same time it is submitted that as a matter of fact the appellant was a Contractor of the Agricultural Development Supply Corporation. He had obtained fertilizer on loan from the Department valuing Rs,11,00,270. The said amount was not being paid by him, therefore, he was asked by the Department to execute a pronote in favour of the Department. This pronote was executed by the plaintiff on 9-4-1986 i.e, the same day on which the impugned pronote was allegedly got executed from the defendant/respondent. It is further explained that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff/appellant for a sum of Rs,2,000 prior to the said date and the defendant was not in possession of that amount on that date, therefore, on the asking of the plaintiff he signed the impugned pronote when it was blank but later on the same was filled in by the appellant/plaintiff according to his own wishes to the tune of present disputed amount, which in fact was never paid by him to the defendant.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is note worthy that plaintiff/ appellant did not enter into the witness-box. He authorized his brother Ali Ahmad P.W.3 to support his case in Court, who expressed his ignorance about the execution of a pronote by his brother/ appellant in favour of the Corporation on the same date. He also expressed his ignorance that his brother had filed a suit against the Corporation regarding the same disputed amount i.e, Rs,11,00,270 and that his said suit was dismissed and his appeal also failed. Meaning thereby that said witness/special attorney of the plaintiff/ appellant knew nothing about the transactions which resulted into the instant pronote and the pronote executed by plaintiff in favour of the Corporation. The execution of the pronote in favour of the Corporation is also established on record from the statement of P.W.4 Ghulam Akbar, who is son of the scribe of Exh.P.1 (pronote). This P.W. Has categorically stated that plaintiff/appellant had also executed a pronote valuing Rs,11,00,270 in favour of the Corporation entered at Serial No,211 of his register. The filing of the suit by the plaintiff/appellant against he corporation is also established from Exh.D/1, which is copy of the plaint filed on 5-12-1987. There is no mention in this plaint of the execution of the present pronote in his favour by the present defendant/respondent. Although the same was allegedly executed on the same date and strangely enough for the same amount. P.W.2 Izkar Ahmad had also appeared as P.W.1 in the said case filed by the appellant but he also did not refer anything about the instant pronote in his statement recorded on 5-7-1989, although, the instant suit had already been filed on 2-4-1989, i.e, in the very recent past.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff/appellant had filed his earlier suit against the Corporation on 5-12-1987, while the instant suit was filed just a week before the expiry of period of limitation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any reason as to how the two amounts are absolutely identical i.e, the amount being claimed by the appellant through the instant suit and the amount of pronote, which was executed by the appellant in favour of the Corporation and challenged through his suit Exh. D/1. All the above-referred circumstances create serious doubt about the genuineness of the pronote Exh.P/1.
8. Abdul Hameed Khan and Malik Riaz Hussain are the two witnesses mentioned in receipt Exh. P/2 regarding the payment of the amount in dispute, who had also not entered appearance in support of the appellant, therefore, the same have also not been proved on record. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Costs to follow the events.