' MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-4-2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I. Khan whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs,20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lacs) on the basis of promissory note dated 14-10-2003 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant brought a suit against the defendant-respondent for recovery of Rs,20,00,000 along with interest at Bank rate on the basis of promissory note dated 14-10-2003. The suit was contested by the defendant- respondent by filing written statement. The pleadings of the parties were reduced into five issues including the relief by the learned trial Court. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce in support of their respective claims. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 20-5-2005.
3. Having felt aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-5-2005, the plaintiff- appellant filed appeal in this Court which was accepted vide orders dated 1-12-2006, the.
Impugned judgment and decree dated 20,5-2005 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh after getting the signatures on the promissory note and the cheques checked by the Handwriting Expert and providing opportunity to the parties to adduce more evidence, if they so desired.
4. As per directions of this Court, the promissory note, three cheques and specimen signatures card of the defendant-respondent relating to A/C No,1984-8 of United Bank Limited Ltd. Were sent for comparison and the result was received on 3-1-2008, however, both the parties relied on the evidence already recorded and did not want to produce further evidence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel or the parties the learned trial Court again dismissed the suit of plaintiff-appellant vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2-4-2008 and hence, the instant appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted written arguments whereas learned counsel for the defendant-respondent made oral submissions at the bar.
6. The contents of the pleadings of the parties coupled with the evidence and arguments of the learned counsel reveal that the case between the parties is based on promissory note allegedly executed between them. This fact further finds support from the relief portion of the plaint in which the plaintiff-appellant has based his entire case on the promissory note dated 14-10-2003, therefore, I would confine my discussion and findings to the said promissory note.
7. The main plea taken by the plaintiff-appellant is that the report of the Handwriting Expert is vague and incomplete because he has not examined the signatures of the defendant-respondent in its true perspective because the alleged signature of the defendant-respondent is not mere "Salahuddin" but Salahuddin "Baqalam Khud".
8. On the other hand; the stand of the opposite side is that the Expert report is correct because its findings disclose that only "Salahuddin" scribed on promissory note was compared by the Expert.
Accordingly, there is no confusion in the report, therefore, it was correctly believed by the Court below.
9. Perusal of the disputed promissory note available on file reveals that the words `Salahuddin Baqalam Khud' is scribed on it. This entry is disputed between the parties. It is to be noted that earlier, this suit was B dismissed by the trial. Court but in appeal, this Court remanded it back to lower Court for getting the opinion of Handwriting Expert regarding the signature of defendant- respondent over the promissory note.
10. In compliance to the directions of this Court, the trial Court sent the promissory note along with signatures of the defendant-respondent with Specimen Signatures Card of the concerned Bank.
After comparison, the Handwriting Expert gave opinion regarding the C signatures vide letter dated 18-12-2007 and the Expert opined that the questioned signature of Salahuddin on the disputed promissory note is not in conformity with the Specimen Signature Card of the Bank and it was held that the same was forged.
11. The situation now is clear after the Expert Report because the main issue between the parties is as to whether the disputed promissory note was executed between the plaintiff and defendant or otherwise. It is a statutory presumption that the promissory note has got presumption of truth unless it is rebutted. In the case in hand, as is evident from the written statement and evidence of the defendant-respondent, he has denied his signature over the promissory note and the same was termed to be forged. In such like situation, the burden to prove the promissory note as forged is on the defendant-respondent as also held by this Court in its remand order as discussed earlier.
In view of the directions of this Court, the dispute regarding the signature was referred by the trial Court for obtaining the opinion of Expert. The Expert opinion is that the signature is not that of defendant-respondent and is forged.
12. Keeping in view the above mentioned opinion of the Expert, there remains no dispute that the signature over the promissory note is not that of defendant-respondent. No materials are available on file to prove the opinion of Expert otherwise. The issuance of various cheques as alleged in the body of the plaint is a matter not relating to promissory note and when the promissory note is not proved, the cheques become irrelevant at least, for the purpose of suit in hand. The prayer in the plaint is also confined to promissory note.
13. Since the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove the promissory note, therefore, in view of my above discussion, I am not inclined to accept this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.