' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The respondent brought a suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for recovery of Rs,11,00,000 (Rs, eleven lacs only) on the basis of a pronote executed on 15-5-1997. The petitioner did not deny borrowing of the amount and execution of the pronote but averred that he has returned the amount and that the original pronote was cancelled and the one relied upon by the plaintiff was forged. The trial Court concluded that the petitioner has not been able to establish his defence. The High Court has upheld the decree vide order, dated 29-7-2002.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal could not have been dismissed in limine and that in any case, the agreement dated 27-4-1998 (Exh.D.1) and the Receipt (Exh.D.2) sufficiently establish the repayment. He has relied on the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others PLD 2002 SC 720 to support the first contention.
3. The two Courts have not relied upon Exh.D.l and Exh.D.2 for the reasons, inter alia, that two marginal witnesses were not produced in evidence. Learned counsel for respondent-caveator has relied upon the case of Mrs. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others 2002 SCM R 1089 to fortify the above conclusion.
4. The approach of the two Courts has not been shown to be defective in any manner. Non- production of the marginal witnesses is fatal. The findings of the two Courts being concurrent, this Court is not required to review the evidence particularly when the two Courts have not violated any principle of law in arriving at the conclusions.
5. We also find no force in the submission that the first appeal in the Lahore High Court could not have been dismissed in limine. Order XLI, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the lower Court for transmission of record and without notice to the respondent. The practice of not dismissing the appeal in limine may be a practice only evolved by the High Court although in law, as noted above the appeal can be dismissed in limine The judgment in Muhammad Ibrahim's case (supra) does not lay down a different law.
6. No ground for our interference has been shown to exist. This petition is hereby dismissed and leave is declined.