'SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,4,80,000 against the appellant/defendant on the basis of a promissory note executed on 25-9-2000, the suit was contested by the appellant, written statement was filed, on the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed, parties were put to trial and the suit decreed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the promissory note is not thumb-marked by him, but despite repeated endeavours the Trial Court did not grant permission to the appellant to have the thumb-impression examined. The learned counsel also stated that the promissory note is without consideration and hence the impugned judgment and decree not tenable in law.
He lastly stated that vital and important evidence and depositions have been ignored by the Trial Court.
1 The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the execution of the promissory note has not been denied specifically, no denial is on record qua affixation of thumb-impression, the evidence was appraised correctly, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is unexceptionable.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree and have examined the written statement filed by the defendant very carefully. There absolutely is no reference to the fact that the defendant has not affixed his thumb-impression on the promissory note, the denial is limited only to signatures, which is not an issue before us. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel to advert to any deposition made by any witness to this effect, despite detailed reference to evidence nothing could come out, as such, we are left with no option but to hold that the thumb-impression affixed on the promissory note was not denied either in the written statement or by the witnesses produced, hence any view otherwise is unsubstantiated. The argument of the learned counsel that the promissory note is without consideration is self-destructive, as by stating so, the appellant himself admits due execution of promissory note, thus the entire defence raised stands, negated. There is not an iota of defence evidence to substantiate the assertion as well, as such, the contention of the counsel is overruled.
5. As far as the evidence is concerned, there is preponderance of evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove his cause, witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination, specifically P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. Contrarily the evidence produced by the defence is on a weaker footing and is not confidence inspiring, it also quality, the Bench mark for adjudication of civil matters is preponderance of evidence, the scale in this particular matter leans heavily in favour of the respondent. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree, consequently, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.