' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 31-7-1989 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint, it was stated that she received a sum of Rs,30,000 from the respondent and executed a pro note on 3-11-1988 promising to re-pay the amount on demand. Such demand was made on 5-4- 1989 when she paid Rs,10,000 and promised to re-pay the balance amount Rs,20,000 after a month.
However, on demand, she refused to do so. A decree was accordingly prayed for. The petitioner- lady in her written statement proceeded to deny having received any amount or to have executed any pro note. According to her, her husband and the respondent used to do business of Commission Agents and were known to each other. A murder case was registered against her husband which was being pursued by the respondent and she gave her a total amount of Rs,68,000 towards the expenses involved. Herhusband was acquitted on 9-1-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded more money but could not render the satisfactory explanation in the matter of the amount already paid by her to him and then threatened that he will get the money come what may. Accordingly, a pro note was statedly fabricated. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 8-4-1991. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the case was remanded back. After the remand, it was decreed on 27-6-1994. A learned ADJ, Gujranwala, dismissed the first appeal on 25-5-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the fact that the execution of the pro note was proved, there is no evidence of passing of consideration and further since the petitioner is a lady, she was not having independent advice. No one has turned up for the respondent.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. The pro note is Exh.P.l. The respondent produced Shah Din P.W.1 who is the Scribe. He stated that the document was written by him. He had read over the same to the petitioner and thereafter she had put her signatures as well as thumb- impressions. In his cross-examination, he stated that the register has been lost. The amount was not paid in his presence but the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the amount. He stated that the petitioner was not personally known to him. P.W.2 is Malik Feroze Din. He is a marginal witness and stated that the pro note was written in his presence after the petitioner had received the money at home and that she had put her thumb-impressions. He stated that she had returned Rs,10,000 on demand and an endorsement Exh.P.1/1 was made on the pro note. Nothing much has been brought out in his cross-examination. The respondent appeared as P.W.3. Now the petitioner- lady appeared as D.W.3. She stated that the petitioner has been pursuing the murder case of her husband and had also stood surety in the matter of succession certificate and in this connection he had been obtaining has signatures on some documents. According to her, she had not received any money. D.W.1 is Mir Muhammad Aslam and D.W.2 is Allah Ditta who have given similar statements. I may further note here that the respondent filed an application before the learned trial Court for sending the pro note and some admitted signatures and thumb-impressions of the petitioner for comparison to an expert. This application was resisted by the petitioner and was rejected by learned trial Court.
4. Having gone through the said evidence on record. I do not find any misreading or non-reading thereof by the learned Courts below.
5. Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel,having examined the statement of the said lady. I do get the impression that she is not a simpleton.
6. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed. However, the partiesare left to bear their own costs.