' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 25-7-1998, the appellant-Bank filed a suit, inter alia, against Zaheer ud Din (hereinafter to be referred as defendant No,6) for recovery of Rs,3,86,98,357). In para 10 of the plaint It was stated that said defendant No,6 secured finance facility by creation of a mortgage on his property mentioned in the said para. The LRs, of the said defendant No,6 filed an application under Order 1 Rule10, C.P.C. Stating that the defendant No,6 had died on 29-12-1988. They were ordered to be impleded and an amended plaint was filed on 4-11-1998. It may be noted here that the case initially was instituted and remained pending in this Court but later was transferred to learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore. The defendants Nos.1 to 5 inthe suit, on the one hand, and the LRs of defendant No,6 on the other, filed an application for leave to defend the suit. Learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by defendants Nos.1 to 5 on 28-9-1999 while leave to defend was granted to LRs of said defendant No,6, Following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendant No,6 and now his legal heirs?
(2) Relief. N.P. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit as against respondent No,6 was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 24-1-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has nothing to say against the impugned judgment and decree in view of the admitted facts that whereas the defendant No,6, Zaheer ur Din had died on 29-12-1988; the documents relied upon by the appellant and produced in evidence Exh. P. W .1/2 and P . W 1/11, dated 2-1-1993 and 26-1-1993, respectively while document Exh.P.W.1/12 was dated 27- 2-1992. Another document stated to be the memo. Of deposit of title deed Exh.P.W.1/15 was dated 27-7-1989 while document of Exh.P.W.I/17 is dated 29-7-1989, Exh.D.1 is the copy of death entry of said Zaheer ur Din, defendant No,6 showing his date of death as 29-12-1988. He, however, processes C.M. No, 682/C/02 seeking permission of a chance to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 2 C.P.C. A document appended with the application (in original) is Annex. A bearing the date 8-2-1988 and purporting to be a memo of deposit of title deeds, is being sought to be produced along with letter, dated 21-3-1987 of the legal advisor of the Bank expressing his satisfaction over the genuineness of the document of title.
3. Learned counsel contends that after the impugned judgment and decree the Bank initiated a search for the said document and ultimately was able to locate the same and that the said documents are necessary for adjudication of the case. Learned counsel for the respondents (LRs, of Defendant No,6) vehemently opposes the said application.
4. We have considered the said request of learned counsel. It is an admitted position on record that Zaheer ud Din, defendant No,6, had died on 29-12-1988. Order, dated 19-7-1998 of this Court shows that an application was filed by the L.Rs of defendant No,6 for being impleaded as party with the contention that Zaheer ud Din, defendant No,6, had died on 29-12-1988. This application was allowed on 21-10-1998 and an amended application was filed accordingly. The appellant was, therefore, fully aware of the said fact but notwithstanding the same it proceeded to produce documents already referred to by us above which werepurported to be executed by Zaheer ud Din when he was long dead and buried.
5. We called upon the learned counsel to explain as to why the Bank did not feel need to initiate a search for the documents which have come from its custody while the matter was pending and the appellant was fully aware that the said person had died long before the date on which the said documents were stated to be executed by him. He has nothing to say.
6. We find the contention of the learned counsel to be entirely improbable and thus unbelievable particularly in the background when the officers of the appellant-Bank are capable of fabricating the documents in order to represent to the Court that these were executed by the dead man. These private documents coming from the custody of the appellant cannot at all be said to be free of doubt. C.M. Accordingly is dismissed.
7. It having been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the documents on the basis whereof the decree was sought against the defendant No,6 stands proved to be forged and fabricated long after his death the R.F.A. Is dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs,20,000.
Record to be remitted back immediately.