1. SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.--- This regular first appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Tank, whereby the suit of the respondent Lal Badshah was decreed against the appellants Abdul Baqi etc.; as prayed for in the plaint.
2. 2.Essential facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that on 18-9-2007, the respondent, namely, Lal Badshah, filed a suit against Abdul Baqi for the recovery of Rs.2,00,000 along with interest/profit on bank rate in terms of Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C., on the basis of Cheque No.176148 payable through the Bank Alfalah Limited D.I. Khan which was dishonoured due to the non- availability of any amount therein. The respondent was served through registered AD, but he failed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge Tank and thus he was proceeded ex parte on 14-2-2008. The plaintiff was thus was directed to submit the list of witnesses for recording ex parte evidence. However, during the proceedings, the respondent died and thus his legal heirs were summoned but they also failed to appear and hence they too were proceeded ex parte.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiff was directed to submit the list of witnesses who accordingly produced ex parte evidence and vide judgment and decree dated 27-6-2009, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed ex parte against the legal heirs of the defendant Abdul Baqi. However, on their application, the suit was restored on 9-3-2010 and the ex parte decree was set aside. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the defendant Abdul Baqi contested the suit by filing written statement and the divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of the following issues:--- (1)Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action and locus standi? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff has sued all the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Baqi? OPP (4)Whether real facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff?
4. (5)Whether the plaintiff suit is within time? OPP (6)Whether Cheque No.176148 of the Bank Alfalah is bogus and prepared fraudulently with mala fide intention or legal one? OPP and OPD (7)Whether on the date of issuance of the disputed cheque, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was able to do business or unable, its legal effect? OPP and OPD (8)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP 3.The parties submitted their lists of witnesses, led pro and contra evidence, both oral as well documentary as they wished to adduce and then the learned trial Judge, after scanning the record in view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs.2,00,000 along with 20% interest per annum with effect from 2-1-2007 till the recovery of the decretal amount vide judgment and decree dated 28-6-2010. Being not contented from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the legal heirs of the defendant Abdul Baqi has questioned the same through the instant appeal.
5. 4.I have carefully gone through the record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. 5.The case of the plaintiff is that he was dealing in the business of grains in the Grain Mandi Mullazi, while the deceased/defendant Abdul Baqi was also carrying the same business. On 2-1-2007, the defendant had purchased grains from the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000 and instead of cash payment, he handed over Cheque No.276248 of his Account No.1000581 in the National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch Tank to the plaintiff for its encashment on 30-1-2007, but the said cheque was dishonoured for want of the requisite amount in his said account number. In such a situation, the plaintiff was required to prove his business, business of the defendant, deal of business, genuineness of cheque of the defendant, his account and account of the defendant and signatures of the defendant on the cheque in question. In support of his case, the plaintiff has produced Muhammad Jan Cashier of the National Bank of Pakistan Tank as P.W.1, who had affirmed the existence of his account number and the production of the aforesaid cheque by the plaintiff from the defendant, while the plaintiff had himself appeared as P.W.2 in support of his claim. On the other hand, the defendant had failed to rebut the claim of the plaintiff through any reliable evidence brought on record. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has successfully, established his case through oral and documentary evidence available on record, while the appellants have miserably failed to rebut the same through any cogent and tangible evidence.
7. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, reached to a correct conclusion while passing the impugned judgment and decree which is based or sound reasons and correct legal footings and needs no interference by this court. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to substantiate his view point through any reliable evidence brought on record.
8. 5.As a result, I find no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with cost.