MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J.--- This appeal impugns the legality and validity of judgment dated 13.04.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhakkar whereby suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- filed by the respondent No.2 on the basis of pronote was decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the pronote had been signed by two witnesses, therefore, it no more remained a negotiable instrument, hence the suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 C.P.C. was not maintainable.
Further submits that respondent No.2 has failed to produce any evidence with regard to lending of money , therefore, he failed to prove the negotiable instrument as required by law, hence the learned trial Court has committed material illegality and irregularity while rendering the judgment impugned. Adds that evidence of the PWs is contradictory qua payment of the disputed amount, so the judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is unsustainable in the eye of law. He has relied upon Malik Muhammad Akram v. Khuda Bakhsh 2000 CLC 759 (Lahore) and Abdul Rauf v . Farooq Ahmad and another (PLD 2007 Lahore 1 14).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 while placing reliance on Altaf Hussain Sajid v.
Muhammad Arif 2008 CLC 1489 (Lahore) , contends that mere signing negotiable instrument by the witnesses does not change its nature or lose its significance within the meaning of Order XXXVII C.P.C., hence the suit was maintainable and rightly decreed by the learned trial Court. Further contends that the evidence as required by law has been produced by respondent/plaintif f and there is no material contradiction in the statements of PWs, hence the decree passed on the basis of positive and unimpeachable evidence does not warrant interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. PW-2 Waris Hussain categorically state d that the amount in dispute had been received by appellant in presence of witnesses on 14.04.2008 and the pronote and receipt thereof Exh.P .1 and Exh.P-2 were executed on 15.04.2008. Evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is also consistent on this point. There are no material contradictions in the statements of PWs regarding paymen t of the amount despite of the fact that the PWs were cross-examined at length and nothing favourable could be extracted from their mouth. All the witnesses are unanimous, therefore, evidence with regard to payment of amount and execution of pronote and its receipt had been proved through confidence inspiring evidence.
So far as the legal question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the suit under Order XXXVII' C.P.C. on the ground that negotiable instrument pronote on account of appearance of signatures of witnesses thereon loses its significance as negotiable instrument, has no force, I am fortified in this regard from the ratio laid down by this Court in Altaf Hussain Sajid v. Muhammad Arif 2008 CLC 1489 (Lahore) .
Hon'ble Supreme Court in an un-reported case bearing C.A. No.1784 of 2008 dated 05.06.2014 also held as under:- "The above quoted provision reveals that a promissory note is an instrume nt in writing if it contains an unconditional undertaking, singed by the maker , to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a certain sum of money either to, or to the order of a certain person or the bearer of the instrument. The instrument in question contains all these conditions . It, however , bears attestation of witness but it neither robs it of its nature as a promissory note nor changes any of its conditions nor even the intentions of the parties. It thus cannot be treated as bond by any stretch of interpretation". (Underline supplied)
6. Above-noted verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court is noted from un-reported judgment of this Court bearing F.A.O.
No.308/2009 dated 23.06.2016.
7. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court.
Resultantly , the instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No order as to cost.