' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Appellant/plaintiff, through the filing of the present appeal, has called in question judgment and decree dated 29-7-2003, whereby the learned District Judge/trial Court dismissed appellant's suit for recovery of Rs,72,000.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,72,000, against the respondent, under the summary procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C., before the learned District Judge, on the basis of a pro note and receipt, allegedly executed by the respondent. According to the appellant his brother namely Muhammad Ramzan was married with Shehnaz, sister of the respondent, and taking advantage of the said relationship, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs,72,000, in the presence of the witnesses and executed the pro note and the receipt, acknowledging, therein that he would return the borrowed amount, along with the profit at the rate of 12% on 5-8-1999. As the said amount was not paid, therefore, the appellant filed the suit. The respondent was granted leave to appear and defend the suit and thereafter, he filed the written statement, thereby controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint, inter alia, pleading that the suit is counterblast to the litigation already pending between the sister of the respondent and brother of the plaintiff. It was asserted that he neither received the said amount nor executed the pro note or the receipt.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the defendant executed pro note and receipt dated 16-7-1999 in favour of the plaintiff?
OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,72,000 with profit at the rate of 12% from the defendant? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is false and frivolous if so, whether the defendant is entitled to recover special costs from the plaintiff? OPD
(4) Whether the suit has been filed as a counterblast to the suits filed by the sister of the defendant? OPD
(5) Relief.
' The parties produced their evidence and ultimately the learned District Judge decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 11-4-2002, however, this Court, while accepting respondent's appeal (R.F.A. No,722 of 2002), set aside the said judgment and decree and remanded the case to the learned trial Court to decide the same, afresh. In the post-remand proceedings, the learned trial Court heard the parties and ultimately dismissed the suit, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29-7-2003, hence the present appeal.
4. Record has been received and perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has admitted his signature on the pro note as well as on the receipt, therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed, as the presumption of correctness is attached to those documents. He has further contended that the impugned judgment suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence.
6. Although initial presumption of correctness is attached to negotiable instruments under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, yet the said presumption is not absolute and rebutable.
Upon the examination of the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel, that the respondent has admitted his signatures on the pro note and the receipt (Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2) is without any substance. The respondent has specifically denied his signatures and the thumb-impression on the documents, relied upon by the appellant. When the execution of those documents was denied by the respondent, then it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove the execution of those documents in accordance with the parameters set up by the law and in the absence whereof it can neither be held nor legitimately argued that the appellant is entitled for the decree on the basis of the disputed documents. Additionally, the appellant, through the production of his evidence, could not prove that, in fact, the suit amount was paid to the defendant and in consideration thereof the documents were executed. In order to rebut the documentary as well as oral evidence, produced by the appellant, the respondent has also produced his evidence. The learned District Judge has rightly held that the defendant has sufficiently rebutted the initial presumption attached.To the pro note (Exh.P.1). In view of the above, to my mind, the learned District Judge has rightly dealt with the matter and the findings rendered by him are not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject. The first contention of the learned counsel is without any force, hence repelled.
7. Although it has been contended that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading and non- reading of evidence, yet when the learned counsel was asked to point out the material pieces of evidence from the record which have either been misread or non-read, the learned counsel, despite his best efforts, could not point out any alleged misreading and non-reading on the part of the learned District Judge. The findings of the learned District Judge do not require any interference.
8. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned District Judge has exhaustively embarked upon the issues involved in the case, appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in its true perspective and has reached to the proper conclusions, which to my mind, are not open to exception. The learned District Judge has, in detail, discussed each and every witness and document on record and after believing/disbelieving the same, came to the authoritative conclusion that the appellant could not prove the execution of Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2, failed to prove that the amount of Rs,72,000 was, in fact, paid to the respondent and that the defendant had sufficiently rebutted the initial presumption attached to pro note Exh.P.1 and the receipt Exh.P.2. I have also perused the evidence produced by the parties in juxtaposition with the findings given by the learned District Judge and am of the view that inferences drawn by the learned District Judge are in accordance with the evidence on record. I see no legal justification to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree, which is legal, not open to exception and was passed in view of the evidence on record: The impugned judgment is hereby maintained.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of merits, thus, the same stands dismissed.