' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent brought a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs,40,000 against the appellant on the basis of a pro note, under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. After the grant of leave to the appellant and framing of issues, the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was recorded and the appellant/ defendant was provided five opportunities to produce his evidence, which includes two opportunities on the payment of costs, but he could neither pay the costs nor produced his evidence on the last date i,e, 8-4-2000, resultantly by applying the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C., the evidence of the appellant/defendant was closed and the suit of the respondent has been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, on 5-4-2000, the father of the appellant demised, therefore, in such situation, he could not produce his evidence.
3. I am afraid, there is no evidence on the record to the above effect. If, the appellant had not been able to produce such evidence before the trial Court, at least the death certificate or the other relevant documents, should have been appended by the appellant along with this appeal, which is conspicuously missing. Resultantly, I do not find this to be a justification for adjournment on 8-4- 2000. Besides, the adjournment was granted subject to payment of costs and the same was also not paid. On merits, I am not satisfied if there is any error in the factual finding of the learned Court below. The only reason that, issue-wise findings have not been given by itself per se would not be an invalid judgment, when from the judgment coupled with the evidence on the record, it is a justified decision:. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.