1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J. --- Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the pro-note, on the basis of which summary suit was filed by the respondent, was a conditional one inasmuch as it referred to an agreement, on the basis of which the pro-note was executed and secondly it was contended by learned counsel that the amount of Rs, 20,00,000/- was advanced by the respondent as partner in the firm of M/s. Iqbal Group of Companies and that such amount was deposited in a joint account operated by the respondent and brother of the petitioner.
2. 2.So far the first submission of learned counsel is concerned, it is admitted that an agreement dated 14.5.1994 was made between the petitioner and the respondent under which the respondent admittedly has paid an amount of Rs, 20,00,000/- to the petitioner on the basis of which pro-note dated 28.6.2002 was signed and executed by the petitioner and on top of the pro-note it was written as follows:--- "As per agreement doled 14.5.1994 and in supersession of promissory note dated 07.3.1996 previously executed by me."
3. 3.These wordings in the heading of promissory note does not appeal to constitute any condition rather it postulates that pro-note has been signed as an additional document to secure the finance as extended by the agreement dated 14.5.1994.
4. 4.Learned counsel has also referred to two dates appearing in the pro-note. One is that of 23.5.2002 and the other is 28.6.2002. We may point out that earlier date of 23.5.2002 is date of stamping of pro-note and latter one that is 28.6.2002 is the date on which pro-note was signed and this is apparent from the receipt which has been filed along with pro-note which is dated 28.6.2002.
5. 5.As regards the second submission of learned counsel, no document whatsoever pertaining to the joint bank account was produced in the Trial Court during evidence of the parties and therefore, mere oral submission in this regard of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as a fact that the amount advanced by the respondent was deposited in a joint bank account operated by the respondent and brother of the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that such documents could not be produced because they were seized. Be that as it may, the petitioner could have taken steps for summoning of these documents from the custody of any of the persons but admittedly no such steps were taken by the petitioner.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and are satisfied that it does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The same is therefore maintained. The petition is dismissed and leave refused.