AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby suit of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs,9,20,000 on the basis of promissory note was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for recovery of 9,20,000 on the basis of promissory note and receipt dated 20-10-1994. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent by filing written statement.
3. The pleadings of the parties reduced into the following issues including the relief by the learned trial Court.
(1) Whether the pro note and receipt dated 20-10-1994 is forged and fictitious document? OPD
(2) Whether the pro note and receipt dated 20-10-1994 was executed' by the defendant himself and defendant had received Rs,9,20,000 from plaintiff as debt? OPP
(3) Relief.
4. The parties produced their respective evidence. The plaintiff-appellant appeared as PW-1 whereas he produced Faiz Muhammad PW2 and Allah Ditta PW.3. Both the- PWs were marginal witnesses of the receipt Exh.P.2. He produced in documentary evidence pro note Exh. P.1, receipt Exh.P.2, enlargement of thumb-impression of defendant-respondent prepared by Finger Print Expert as Exh. P.3 , and report of Finger Print Expert as Exh.P.4. In rebuttal defendant-respondent produced Maqbool Hussain as DW-1, Iqbal Shah as DW-2 and the defendant himself appeared as DW-3. He did not produce any documentary evidence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant vide judgment and decree dated 8-2-2001.
5. Having felt aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree dated 8-2-2001, the plaintiff- appellant filed appeal in this Court which was admitted to regular hearing on 12-6-2001.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the record and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that finding recorded by the learned trial Court are based on presumption. Even the learned trial Court has not discussed the evidence of either side available on the file. By perusing findings of the learned trial court it is visible that while recording findings it was not in the mind of the learned trial Court that it is a suit filed under the provisions of law prescribed for summary suit.
This suit has been filed under order XXXVII of Civil Procedure Code. Another important fact of the case is that plaintiff was equipped with presumption in his favour with regard to the promissory note in accordance with section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The promissory, note Exh.P.1 clearly indicates that the defendant-respondent has given undertaking to appellant/plaintiff that he has secured loan of Rs,9,20,000 from him, in presence of witnesses and he will pay on demand to the respondent the said amount. The said undertaking squarely falls in the definition of promissory note.
8. As far as the authenticity; genuineness, and sanctity of promissory note Exh.P.1 and receipt Exh.P.2 are concerned, it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt by witnesses produced by the plaintiff-appellant and nothing adverse has been brought on the record to doubt their veracity.
Another important aspect of the matter is that defendant-respondent has not only signed but also affixed his thumb-impression on the promissory note as well as on the receipt Exh. P. 1 and Exh.P.2 respectively. The signatures of the appellant could be disputed but the finger prints have more sanctity, authenticity and reliability than the signatures. The report of Finger Print Expert is also in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The presumption attached to the promissory note undar section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is also in his favour. The discussion about the points which are not much relevant by the learned trial Court while recording findings on Issue No,2 are not in accordance with law. The plaintiff-appellant has fully proved his case through cogent and convincing evidence.
9. Keeping in view the above stated factual and legal aspects of the matter we are of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated evidence of the parties, which require interference.
10. In the circumstances, the instant Regular First Appeal is accepted, the. Findings recorded by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant are set aside. Consequently the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant with costs.