' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The suit of the respondent under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For recovery based upon a cheque has been allowed after grant of leave to the petitioner and it has been found by the Trial Court that the cheque has been issued by the petitioner. The R.F.A. Against that judgment has also failed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated, that in fact a security cheque was given to the respondent only for 10 days, and this was a security for the repayment of the loan. However, at the same time it is argued that the cheque in question does not bear the signature of the petitioner, as this has so been stated by the Bank Officers, and appearing as witnesses before the Trial Court, suffice it to say that there is a serious contradiction between the two stances taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner today. Besides, it is conceded that the cheque belongs to the petitioner and there is no evidence that the cheque was A stolen by the respondent. Moreover, the petitioner did not at an appropriate point of time produce any expert to establish that the signature on the cheque does not belong to the petitioner. The statements of the Bank Officers, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are not relevant because they are not hand-writing experts capable of establishing or refuting the disputed signature of the petitioner. Though reliance has been placed on Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others (1999 SCMR 1778) to argue, that the Court should have sought an opinion from an expert, suffice it to say that it has never been held therein that it is a compulsion and a duty of the Court to do so especially when the petitioner never applied to the Court in this behalf. It is not required of a Court to fish for the evidence for a party and to fill up the lacuna of its case, particularly in the matter where the party itself is delinquent to prove its own case. In the light of the above, no case is made out for interference.
Dismissed accordingly.