BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J. - This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah for the recovery of an amount of Rs. Two lacs in favour of the respondent on the basis of promote allegedly executed on 5.7.1995.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions in support of his appeal:-
(a) That the respondent examined two other witnesses apart from himself, Manzoor Hussain was Wasiqa Navees (petition writer) who admitted in his cross-examination that no transfer of amount Rs. Two lacs was made in his presence when he drawn the alleged promote. Ghulam Hassan respondent appeared as PW-2 and he admitted in his cross- examination that had measuring 59 kanals and 9 marlas was purchased by the present appellant from him for consideration of Rs.
2,50,000/-. According to the learned counsel when the mutation was attested an amount of Rs.
Two lacs was yet to be paid and the same was subsequently said but the promote was not returned to the petitioner and the allegation promote is of illegal effect and the same is without consideration.
(b) There is clear contradiction in the statements of PW.2 and PW.3 Nazir Ahmad who is real nephew of respondent Ghulam Hassan.
3. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment by arguing that execution of the pro-note and the receipt has been admitted. The defence taken by the appellant is afterthought and has not been supported by evidence.
4. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised by the Learned counsel for the parties.
5. The execution of the promote has been admitted by the appellant himself. The plea that the money was not passed has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Court below. There is no documentary proof in support of the defence taken by the appellant. He has himself admitted liability even before me by making a reference to Iqrar Nama entered into between the parties subsequent to decision of the case whereby the petitioner acknowledged the liability and had agreed to make the payment in instalments. No illegality, mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence has been pointed out therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.