' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. - Hayat Ullah Khari, the appellant/plaintiff, through the filing of the present appeal, has called in question judgment and decree dated 29-11- 2001, whereby, the learned District Judge dismissed appellant's suit for recovery of Rs,18000.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,18000, against the .Respondent, under the summary procedure provided under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Before the learned District Judge, on the basis of pro note and receipt dated 31-8-1998.It was asserted in the plaint that the appellant gave a loan of Rs,18,000 to the defendant, who acknowledge the same by way of executing the pro note and receipt dated 31-8-1998 and failure of the defendant to pay the said amount necessitated the filing of the suit for recovery. After the service, on an application, filed by the respondent, he was allowed to defend the suit, subject to furnishing of surety bond equal to the disputed amount. Consequently the respondent filed the written statement, thereby controverting the contents of the plaint. It was inter alia pleaded by him that the pro note and receipt were prepared through coercion and torture, exercised by the police.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, .The learned District Judge framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the defendant has obtained a loan of Rs,18,000 from the plaintiff? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs,18,000 through pro note and receipt ?OPP
(3) Whether the pro note and receipt dated 31-8-1998 is forged and fictitious? OPD.
(4) Relief.
' The learned Court recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 29-11-2001, hence the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the execution of the pro note was proved; that .There was sufficient evidence, produced by the appellant, to decree the suit and that there was no rebuttal on behalf of the respondent to the evidence, produced by the appellant conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree.
5. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have examined the impugned judgment and 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 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 after believing/disbelieving the same, came to the authoritative conclusion that the pro note and .Receipt dated 31-8-1998 seem to be result of coercion by the police and plaintiff. I have perused the evidence produced by the parties in juxta position with the findings rendered by the learned District Judge and is of the view that the inferences drawn by the learned District Judge are not only in accordance with the record of the case, but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject. .I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is legal, unexceptionable and does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence, yet when asked to explain as to which portion of evidence has been misread or non-read, the learned counsel, despite his best efforts, could not point out any such mis-reading and non-reading of evidence by the learned District Judge.
7. In view of the reasons and findings, given above, the present appeal is devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.