' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,13,65,000 (rupees thirteen lac sixty five thousand only) against the appellant(defendant) pleading that he owned a Mercedez Benz Car, which he sold to the appellant, for the stated consideration. Defendants issued cheques for payment but they could not be encashed, therefore, a decree was prayed for. The appellant contested the suit, denied the assertion contained in the plaint, of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, and the parties were put to trial. The suit after contest was dismissed to the extent of respondents Nos.2 and 3, but was decreed against the appellant, he thereof, filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the parties were involved in joint business, the evidence tendered by the plaintiff was not reliable, cogent but the trial Court and lower appellate Court failed to decipher or appreciate it correctly; separate findings on each issue as required by Order XX Rule 5 C.P.C. Were not given, therefore, the judgments and decrees be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 supported the judgments and decrees and stated that evidence tendered by the parties was considered deeply and thereafter the suit decreed, it is also not necessary for the appellate Court to decide each issue independently if the Court is cognizant of the dispute.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the trial Court.
5. The trial Court appraised and deciphered the evidence and thereafter decreed the suit, cheques were issued but could not be encashed due to insufficient funds, it was so proved by cogent evidence. The appellant/defendant could not rebut this, by reliable evidence, suit therefore, was decreed. The parameters of second appeal as contained in section 100 C.P.C., postulate (a) the decision being contrary to law or usage having the force of law (b) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law; and (c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to prove due payment, he could not make out a case on parameters set in section 100 C.P.C. It is not necessary for the appellate Court to giving findings issue-wise, if it is cognizant of the proposition in dispute, and gives finding on each point raised, it has so been done in the impugned judgment. Reference "Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad. Khan" (2002 SCM R 667) and "Mst Husna Bano and others v. Faiz Muhammad and others (2000 SCM R 1647). This appeal has, therefore, no merits and is dismissed.