SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- A suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,20,000 was brought by the respondent on the basis of a promissory note, dated 31-10-1996, which on grant of leave to appear and defend to the appellant was tried by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who' on perusal of the evidence that was produced by the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 10-6-2000. This is regular first appeal thereagainst by the defendant.
2. The learned counsel contends that the findings recorded by the trial Court particularly on Issues Nos.3 and 4 are not borne out by the evidence on the record inasmuch as that the previous promissory note dated 15-8-1996 had not been produced. It is contended that the promissory note relied upon was defective in law and could not be enforced nor made basis for the decree.
According to him even the execution of the same was not proved in accordance with law inasmuch as that the signature and thumb-impressions of the appellant were not got examined or compared from the expert. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contends that since the scribe and attesting witnesses of the promissory note had been examined and produced due formalities to prove the execution of the document were fulfilled and on consideration of the evidence produced by the parties the learned Judge has through a reasoned judgment decreed the suit. According to him it was too late for the appellant now to contend that the execution of the document was not proved in strict conformity with the procedure or the law.
3. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered in the light of the material on the record and the precedents cited by them.
4. As has been mentioned above the suit was based on a promissory note Exh.P.1, dated 31-10-1996.
As per the averments in the suit the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000 from the respondent on 15-8-1996 and a promissory note was executed which loan was acknowledged later on by executing Exh.P.1 on 31-10-1996. It was now for a sum of Rs.2,20,000, as a sum of Rs.20,000 was added as profit. The promissory note bears stamps, it has signatures as well as the thumb- impression of the appellant. It was witnessed by Muhammad Rafique and Ahmed Khan. Both these persons have been produced and examined as witnesses. The respondent/plaintiff himself appeared as a witness. It has been found by the learned trial Judge that in order to prove the valid execution of the promissory note the plaintiff has produced both the attesting witnesses along with the scribe of the same, the marginal witnesses identified their signatures over Exh.P.1 and also stated that the said document was executed in acknowledgment of the payment of a sum of Rs.2,20,000 due towards the plaintiff". In the context of the denial of the execution by the appellant it was observed that "On the day his statement was recorded he was made to sign on the sheet on which evidence was recorded and his thumb-impressions were also obtained thereon. On myself comparing the signatures as well as the thumb-impressions over Exh.P.1 I have no hesitation in my mind that the signatures and the thumb-impressions over Exh.P.1 and those obtained by this Court on 9-5-2000, there is no difference". Such a course was indeed adopted by the learned trial Court for its satisfaction despite the fact that the scribe and the attesting witnesses had appeared and deposed so. It was on such satisfaction that the vital aspect of the matter was decided by the Court accordingly. It may be observed that for proving a disputed document there are various modes and the Court can follow any of those including the comparison of signatures or thumb- impressions. In case the appellant was not satisfied or wanted to have his signatures and thumb- impressions compared by the expert he should have made a move before the trial Court. It is now too late for him to assail the finding of the trial Court on that ground. Since the record of the trial Court is present before us, we have ourselves compared the signatures of Abdul Razzaq appellant (those on the promissory note and the order-sheet, dated 9-5-2000) and find a great similarity in the same. Findings, therefore, recorded by the learned trial Court on Issue No.3 are unexceptional and affirmed. Insofar as Issue No.4 is concerned the findings of the trial Court are fully in accordance with law which has rightly been answered against the appellant. We, therefore, affirm the findings on these vital issues recorded by the trial Court.
5. Insofar as the decretal amount is concerned we find that as per the contents of plaint itself the original loan amount was Rs.2,00,000 claimed to have been obtained by the appellant on 15-8- 1996. We fail to understand-how a profit of Rs.20,000 could accrue within two months of obtaining of loan. Though in the promissory note dated 31-10-1996 the amount of Rs.2,20,000 was mentioned yet we are not prepared to accept the justification for addition of Rs.20,000 therein. Accordingly whereas we dismiss the appeal, the decretal amount is modified and reduced to Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) only.
No order as to costs.