' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.---This Regular First Appeal No, 287 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the suit instituted by respondent under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. On the basis of promissory note dated 6- 5-1998 was decreed for a sum of Rs.715,000 against the appellant.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent instituted a suit on 18-12-2000 before the Additional District Judge Faisalabad under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. For the recovery of Rs.715,000 against the appellant with the contention that a sum of Rs.715,000 was borrowed by the appellant/defendant from the respondent/plaintiff and in proof of the transaction promissory note Exh.P.1 dated 6-5-1998 was executed by the appellant. In addition to the promissory note receipt Exh.P.2 was also executed by the appellant in the presence of two witnesses namely Haji Abdul Hameed son of Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Jamil son of Muhammad Ibrahim.
3. The appellant moved an application for permission to appear and defend the suit before the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, which was allowed on 26-2-2001. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(3) Whether the disputed promissory note is forged and fictitious document and that the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35-A C.P.C., if so, to what extent and amount?
OPD
(4) Whether the disputed promissory note and receipt dated 6-5-1998 were validly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant as prayed for? OPD
(6) Relief.
4. The parties produced their respective evidence. During the pendency of the suit the appellant/defendant moved an application dated 23-10-2003 before the Addl. District Judge for getting his signatures as well as thumb impressions verified from the hand writing and thumb impression expert. This application was allowed vide order dated 20-1-2004 and the appellant was directed to deposit the fee for sending the documents for comparison and verification to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant did not comply with the direction of the learned Addl.
District Judge and two opportunities were allowed to the appellant to do the needful, resuitantly vide order dated 12-2-2004 the right of the appellant to seek the verification from the Forensic Science Laboratory was closed. An application for recalling the order dated 12-2-2004 was moved by the appellant and the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the said application vide order dated 27-2-2004.
5. After the completion of the respective evidence of the parties the learned Addl. District Judge decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide_ judgment and decree dated 30-3-2004.
The Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-2004.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents Exh.P.1 and Exh. P.2 are forged documents and do not bear the signatures of the appellant. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the appellant did not receive any amount from the respondent and that the learned trial Court passed the decree against the appellant illegally.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has argued that the respondent has proved his case by producing the scribe of the promissory note Exh.P.1 and that of receipt Exh.P.2. It was further argued that out of the two witnesses of the receipt Exh.P.2 it has come on the record that one witness had died whereas the other witness has been produced. It is also argued that the appellant had taken the plea of total denial of the execution of Ex.h.P.1 as well as that of Exh.P.2 and he was allowed two opportunities by the learned Addl. District Judge to make payment of fee for getting the comparison of the documents with the signatures and thumb impressions of the appellant verified through the Forensic Science Laboratory and the appellant failed to avail those opportunities and ultimately vide order dated 12-2-2004 the right of the appellant to seek the verification and establish the fact that the promissory note Exh.P.1 and receipt Exh.P.2 do not bear the signatures and thumb impressions of the appellant was not availed of. The learned counsel for the respondent has thus argued that the case of the respondent has been established through direct evidence by producing the scribe and the other witness Muhammad Jamil of the receipt Exh.P.2 and the respondent has also himself appeared in the evidence to prove his case. It is further argued that the appellant could not forward any reason for false institution of the suit against him by the respondent.
8. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated his request that the signatures and thumb impression of the appellant be got verified through the Forensic Science Laboratory. In order to verify the bona fides of the appellant we had asked the learned counsel for the appellant to ask the appellant to deposit the decretal amount in the Court and we further wanted to give two months' time to the appellant to make the said deposit in the Court subject to the condition that the documents Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 will be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for confirmation but the appellant expressed his inability to arrange for the amount and make the deposit.
10. The respondent has produced the scribe of Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 namely Muhammad Asghar as P.W.1 and has produced P.W.2 Muhammad Jamil in addition to getting his own statement recorded as P.W.3. All the two witnesses as well as the respondent have proved the execution of documents Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 by the appellant on 6-5-1998. The simple denial by the appellant in his evidence of the execution of the above documents is not sufficient to rebut the case which has been proved by the respondent. In order to satisfy our judicial conscience we have ourselves examined closely the signatures of the appellant on Exh. P.1 and Exh.P.2 and have compared these signatures with the signatures of the appellant on his written statement reply dated 5-11-2002 submitted before the learned Addl. District Judge, on an application with respect to submission of A surety bond. We have also seen the signature of the appellant on his application dated 19-2-2004 moved for recalling of the order dated 12-2-2004 and affidavit submitted with this application . We have also examined the signatures of the appellant on a statement got recorded before the learned trial Court on the order sheet dated 27-9-2003. We have also examined the signatures of the appellant on the memorandum of appeal dated 28-6-2004, on C.M. No, 1-C/2004, the affidavit sworn in support of C.M. No,1-C/2004, signatures of the appellant on C.M. No,2-C/2004 moved before this Court and the affidavit sworn in support of C.M. No,2-C/2004. The signatures of the appellant on the power of attorney dated 12-6-2004 submitted before this Court and by comparison of all these signatures in exercise of our own powers vested under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, we are satisfied that the admitted signatures of the appellant are reasonably same with the signatures of the appellant on Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. The findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge on issues Nos. 3,4 and 5 in the impugned judgment are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence and no illegality has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant in the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge on the said issues. We are convinced that the appellant has executed the promissory note Exh.P.1 and the receipt Exh.P.2 and the signatures upon the said promissory note and the receipt are that of the appellant. The respondent and the scribe of note as the promissory well as that of the receipt has fully proved the and the statement of witness Muhammad Jamil further corroborate version of the execution of the said documents respondent.
11. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-3-2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad. There is no merit in this Regular First Appeal, which is dismissed with costs throughout.