' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- This regular first appeal filed by Muhammad Wazir appellant is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-7-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I. Khan, whereby suit of Ihsanullah plaintiff-respondent was decreed.
2. Briefly narrated facts of the case are that Ihsanullah Khan had filed a suit against Muhammad Wazir for the recovery of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) on the basis of pro note and receipt dated 18-6-2004 along with interest at the Bank rate till the payment of the said amount as envisaged under Order XXXVII, rule, 2, C.P.C. According to the averments made in the plaint, the parties were at friendly terms with each other and Muhammad Wazir defendant had demanded Rs,2,00,000 as "Qarz-e-Hasna" from the plaintiff Ihsanullah, who paid it to him in presence of witnesses and pro note along with receipt dated 18-6-2004 was scribed in this behalf. When demanded, the defendant showed his reluctance to pay the said advanced loan and finally refused, hence the suit.
3. At first instance, the defendant attended the Court but then disappeared and thus on 7-9-2004, the learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I. Khan decreed the suit of the plaintiff in view of the provisions contained under sub-clause (2) of subsection (2) of Order XXXVII, C.P.C.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal in this Court which was accepted and remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh on the application for leave to defend of the defendant which was consequently allowed. Thereafter, the defendant filed written statement by raising legal and factual objections. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed eight issues including the relief whereafter the parties produced their evidence which they wished to adduce and hearing arguments pro and contra, decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, vide judgment referred above. Hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the execution of pro note dated 16-6-2004 (Exh.P.W.1/1).
To prove the genuineness of the pro note, the plaintiff examined Muhammad Ayaz Baloch, Petition- writer, D.I. Khan as P.W.1, who exhibited the copy of pro note Exh.P.W.1/1 and copy of relevant page of his register as Exh.P.W.1/2, and affirmed that the defendant had thumb-impressed the pro note in his presence and that Allah Nawaz marginal witness i,e, P.W.,3 had also signed the same before him. He stated that defendant obtained Rs,2,00,000 from the plaintiff in his presence and he had taken the thumb-impression and the signature of defendant as well as of the marginal witnesses upon receipt of the said pro note and that the contents of the pro note were incorporated by him in his register. The execution of the pro note and the receipt of payment was further affirmed by the marginal witnesses i,e, P.W.3 Allah Nawaz and P.W.4 Rahmatullah in their statements. Plaintiff Ihsanullah when appeared and examined as P.W.2 also supported the contents of his suit and stated that 3-4 times earlier too, the defendant and his brother had obtained Qarz-e-Hasna from him and had returned the same but this time the defendant refused to pay back the suit money.
On the other hand, the defendant had failed to rebut by any cogent and substantial evidence the execution of the pro note and the receipt of the suit money from the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff had successfully proved his case by examining and producing the scribe and marginal witnesses of the pro note. Learned trial Judge has thus, correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, in view of the dicta handed down in the cases of Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Aslam 2006 M LD 599 and Muhammad Younis Rehman v. Ghulam Mustafa 2006 M LD 219.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity, misreading or non-reading of material evidence available on record so as to call for interference by this Court through this appeal.
8. Consequently, I find no substance in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed.