' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.-Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit on 3-5-1999 under Order XXXVII C.P.C. For recovery of rupees one lac on the basis of a pro note. The appellant/ defendant applied for leave to appear and defend the suit and the same was granted. He filed written statement alleging that the pro note was forged, fictitious and based upon fraud. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the suit is not . Maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious ahd as such the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35-A C.P.C.? OPD.
(5) Whether the Pro note dated 19-5-1996 and receipt were validly executed by the defendant in favour of. The plaintiff and is not a forged and fraudulent document? OPD.
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? OPP.
(7) Relief.
' The Learned Additional District Judge Jhang, after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plainitiff/defendant on 5-10-2002
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the pro note has not been attested as required by section 17(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The pro note in question has not been signed/attested by two witnesses. He further argued that there are discrepancies in the testimony of the P.Ws. 1 and 2.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgments.
4. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and perused the record and considered ihe arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The pro note Ext.P.l and the receipt of rupees one lac, are on the one and the same piece of paper. The receipt for rupees one lac Exh.P.2, bears the names of two witnesses, i.e, Muhammad Latif Pehlwan P.W.2 and Imdad Ali, P.W.3 both the witnesses have stated that the payment was made in then- presence and the defendant- appellant had put his thumb impression on Exh.P.l and Exh.P.2 in their presence. The samples of the thumb impression of the appellant were obtained by. The learned trial Court and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore for comparison with the thumb impression on pro note and receipt, Exhs.P.l and P.2. The report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Incharge Finger Print Bureau, Lahore, Exh.P.3 shows that the thumb impressions on both the documents are identical. The report was proved by Muhammad,,Iqbal, Inspector of Police, P.W.5 the signatory of the report and nothing material could be extracted from him. The receipt of rupees one lac Exh.P.2 stands proved on the record. The thumb impress-ion of the defendant- appellant on pro note is also proved by Exh.P.3. The minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the P.Ws. Do not affect the case.
' As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the pro note is not attested by two witnesses, suffice to say that the pro note and the receipt are on the same piece of paper.
The receipt Exh.P.2 has been proved by the witnesses. The pro note is not "required to be attested" by witnesses under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Subsection (2) of Article 17 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order 1984 reads as under:-
(2) Unless otherwise provided in any law relating to the Enforcement of Hudood or any other special law:
(a) in matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced to writing, the instrument shall be attested by two men, or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other, if necessary, and evidence shall be led accordingly; and
(b) in all other matters, the Court may accept, or act on, the testimony of one man or one woman, or such other evidence as the circumstances of the case may warrant."
' The opening phrase of the aforementioned subsection (2) shows that if the special law provides otherwise, the requirement of attestation of the instrument by two witnesses is not necessary. In my view negotiable instrument/pro note is governed by Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.
5. For what has been stated above, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.