' Through this appeal appellant, who was plaintiff in a suit filed 24.12.2003 under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the, CPC for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- on the basis of pronote dated 2.1.2001; has challenged the Judgment & decree dated 2.3.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby his suit was dismissed
2. As per report of the Process Server respondent has avoided personal service, therefore, he has been served through affixation. No he is present on his behalf, therefore, he is proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Learned counsel states that despite service defendant failed ' appear before the Court, therefore, on 20.7.2004 he was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, he appeared before the Court on .1.2005 and filed application for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding d for leave to defend the suit but again he disappeared on 20.6.2005 and he was again proceeded against ex-parte. Plaintiff produced evidence to prove his case and despite that learned trial Court vide ground that two revenue stamps on the pronote Exh.P1 have not been cancelled and further that some revenue stamps have been affixed on the back side of the pronote. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in RFA.No, 452 of 2004 titled "Abdul Rehman etc. Versus Mehr Ghulam Dastgir Lak" on 7.3.2014 and prayed that suit be decreed as non- cancelling of the revenue stamps as well as affixing of revenue stamps on the back side of the promissory note Exh.P. 1 was absolutely no defect.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
5. As in the facts it has been noted that after appearance defendant disappeared, therefore, no question of raising objection by the defendant on non-cancelling of two revenue stamps affixed on the promissory note and further that affixing of some revenue stamps on the back side of the promissory note is absolutely no defect. Further when no objection has been raised at the time it was tendered in evidence it cannot be taken at this stage. Light can be taken from unreported judgment rendered by this Court in RFA.No, 452 of 2004 titled "Abdul Rehman etc. Versus Mehr Ghulam Dastgir Lak" on 7.3.2014, PLD 2014 Lahore 1 "Muhammad Boota versus Basharat Ali." and 2007 MLD 1 "Abid Hussain versus Abdul Abbas" wherein on the same point it was held as under: "As regards the objection of non-cancellation of the adhesive stamps is concerned, suffice it to say, that the appellant has not taken this objection at the time when the pronote Was tendered into evidence, therefore, under the rules such plea cannot be raised at this stage."
5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is decreed with costs throughout.