' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---Through this RFA, the appellant Muhammad Nawaz has assailed the judgment and decree dated 11-4-2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal whereby suit under order XXXVII, C.P.C. For recovery of Rs,2,80,000 on the basis of pro note filed by respondent/plaintiff Muhammad Nasar Iqbal against the Muhammad Nawaz appellant.
2. Succinctly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Muhammad Nasar Iqbal respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,80,000 on the basis of pro note which was executed by the defendant/appellant, who after obtaining leave to defend filed written statement in which he has denied the execution of the pro note. Learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording the evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent vide judgment and decree dated 11-4-2007. Hence this R. F.A.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court.
4. The respondent/plaintiff in order to prove his case has produced Muhammad Naeem Paracha as P.W.1 who compared the entry of pro note on the register at serial No,555 dated 26-7-2000. He found entry of the pro note in his register and he was declared hostile. Muhammad Nasar Iqbal, plaintiff himself appeared as P.W.2 who has stated that he had business transaction with the appellant; that he executed pro note Exh.P.1/1 and receipt Exh.P.1/2 for the payment of Rs,2,80,000 that defendant/appellant has put his thumb impression in front of him. Malik Abdul Khaliq appeared as P.W.3 has stated that amount in question was settled in his presence and defendant/ appellant executed the pro note and receipt and he put his thumb impression on the pro note and receipt. Muhammad Saleem P.W.4 has also supported the case of the plaintiff/ respondent.
5. Conversely, Shah Jahan appeared as D.W.1 has stated that he was appointed arbitrator. He denied any pending amount. He did not deposed qua the execution of pro-note by the defendant.
He admitted that he was not aware of any transaction. Similarly Aurangzaib D.W.2 stated about the decision of arbitrator regarding to the effect that no amount was pending against the defendant.
Muhammad Nasar Iqbal appeared as D.W.3 denied that he has joint business with the plaintiff. He has admitted that no arbitration regarding the pro note was ever conducted. Arbitrator has not given any decision qua pro note. The plaintiff/ respondent has proved execution of pro note and receipt through P. W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 even P.W.5 Qamar Saj id S.-I, Finger Print Expert Bureau has stated that he has verified his report Exh.P.3 which was verified by the Incharge, Finger Print Expert Bureau Punjab. He compared thumb impression of Muhammad Nawaz in pro-note who verified the same of the defendant/appellant. The witnesses produced by the respondent/plaintiff have been faced test of cross-examination but nothing came out. The respondent/plaintiff has proved his case through cogent and reliable evidence. In this view of the matter the defendant/appellant has failed to prove any decision of the arbitration on the pro note. The plaintiff/respondent has proved its case through reliable evidence which we have gone through the record and impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the appellant.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree reveals that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is elaborate and is based on cogent reason. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Resultantly, there being no merit in this R.F.A, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.