' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---The appellant impugns the judgment and decree dated 20-10- 2000, passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore, through which the suit filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For recovery of an amount of Rs,25,000 on the basis of pro note has been dismissed notwithstanding the fact that the petition for leave to appear and defend of the respondent was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, it was observed that, the pro note is not required to be attested by any of the witnesses; however, the law requires that receipt of such pro note /payment has to be attested by at least two witnesses as envisaged in Article 17(2-a). It was further observed that the promissory note is also not admissible in evidence for the reason that the revenue stamps are not affixed on the face of the promissory note and have been affixed at the back of the promissory note. It has also been observed that even those revenue stamps have not been properly cancelled.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of the cases reported as Pervez Ahmad Khan Burki and 3 others v. Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. And 2 others PLD 1999 Lahore 31; Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs Nagi Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. And 7 others 2002 CLD 712-Lahore and Naeem Iqbal v. Mst. Zarina 1996 SCM R 1530 contends that on refusal to grant the petition for leave to appear and defend decree ought to have been granted in favour of the appellant. Adds that presumption of truth is attached to the promissory note therefore, the appellant was not under legal obligation to prove the execution of receipt by producing two marginal witnesses as envisaged in Article 17 read with Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Further contends that on the technical point of affixation of revenue stamps on the back of the promissory notice and not cancelling the same suit could have not been dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. On refusal of grant of leave to defend in a suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. It is not obligatory for the Court to decree the suit. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Presumption of truth is attached to the negotiable instrument, but the receipt of the pro note showing that the amount of Rs,25,000 was given by the appellant to the respondent on loan was required to be attested by at least two witnesses, and was to be proved by producing at least two witnesses as required to be produced under Article 17(2) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The petition for leave to appear and defend has been rejected but the contents thereof would show that the respondent has denied the execution of the pro note. The promissory note is also not admissible in evidence for the reason that the revenue stamps are not affixed on the face of the pro note and the same have not been cancelled. The learned trial Court has rightly relied on the case reported as Habib Bank Limited v. Nusrat Naheed and others 1989 MLD 3347.
' The appellant has failed to prove his case. This being so, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.