TARIQ JAVAID, J. - This regular second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 28.1.2005 passed by Malik Khalid Mehmood, learned Additional District Judge, Vehari whereby appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2004 passed by Muhammad Riaz Chopra, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Vehari was dismissed. The appellant instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 300,000/- on the basis of cheque allegedly issued by the respondent against the amount of loan taken by the said respondent.
2. It was argued that the learned Courts below have erred by deciding the case against the appellant and the impugned judgment and decree are result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence available on record; that both the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence produced by the appellant and the impugned judgment has been based on surmises and conjectures; that there were two distinct transactions between the petitioner and respondent as well as petitioner and the father of the respondent and both the Courts below miserably failed to justify and distinguish between the said transactions and misread the evidence; that the pleas taken in both the cases have been intermingled and the wrong judgment has been passed. The respondent borrowed Rs. 300,000/- and issued a bogus cheque whereas another amount of Rs.
300,000/- was lent to the father of the respondent which was a separate transaction.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner as the same has not been supported by evidence; that it was imperative for the appellant to prove that the respondent issued the impugned cheque, was signed by the respondent and ho such prove has been also maintained that it is amply proved from the record that the alleged cheque was neither issued by the respondent nor has signed by him. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the cheque has been, forged by the appellant himself to falsely implicate the petitioner into this case, It has also been pointed of that the respondent has already been acquitted from the case registered against him by the appellant under Section 489-F of the P.P.C.
4. It appears that the Courts below have considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them in considerable detail. The testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses does not show that the impugned cheque was issued by the respondent. Once the bank has raised an objection that the cheque Ex. P1 was returned for the reasons including that the signatures of the drawer differ then there was no reason to present the same for encashment. The cheque was presented again and again and each time same an objection was raised with regard to the signature of the respondent, than it was important for the plaintiff to prove that the cheque was executed by the respondent or at least that the same was handed over to him in satisfaction of alleged debt owed by him to the appellant. No such evidence has been produced on record. None of the witness has come forward with evidence that the cheque was issued and handover to the appellant in their presence. Although DW-3 testified that some transaction was effected in his presence but he also maintained that cheque was not given in his presence. Since it is not proved that the petitioner executed the impugned cheque or he handed over the same to the appellant nor it is on record that the cheque book out of which the alleged cheque was issued had been issued to the respondent, it cannot be said that cheque in question was issued by the respondent. The appellant, while producing evidence also failed to prove that the cheque book, out of which the cheque in question was allegedly scented by the respondent was either issued to the respondent or to some one related to him. The very proof of the assertion that the cheque in question was issued in satisfaction of a debt is also missing. The appellant has not been able to show that any money was advanced to the respondent. The mere assertion that the appellant had sold a piece of land and that he was in possession of the money is not a conclusive proof that the same had been advanced to the respondent, In any event, even if we presume it to be so, then the appellant who had known the respondent ought to have enquired about the validity of cheque, he ought to have verified within the signatures were real/genuine or not. The signatures are also not proved. No illegality has been shown in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.