1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition is filed against the order of a Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, Karachi Bench, in First Appeal No. 5 of 1970 dated the 26th May 1970. By this judgment the High Court dismissed the First Appeal summarily.
2. The petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 7,000 under a pronote which was signed as well as thumb- marked on the 8th December 1965. The amount was to be paid on demand. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, rule I, C. P. C. For the recovery of Rs. 8,312/50. The petitioner obtained leave to defend the suit. He denied the claim of the respondent. He alleged that he had neither taken any loan from the respondent nor had executed any pronote. Accord--ing to him due to the War of 1965 between India and Pakistan, he was extended from Hyderabad and was confined within the limits of Mulla Khatiar, a village at a distance of 25 miles from Hyderabad where he remained under police surveillance from the 12th November 1965 to 12th March 1966.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed, namely :-
(1) Whether the promissory note has been executed by the defendant?
(2) Whether the adhesive stamps on the pronote has been' affixed later on? If so, had the promissory note become inadmissible in evidence?
4. Both the issues were decided in favour of the respondent. The trial Court, on the evidence of the Handwriting Expert, had held that the promissory note was executed by the petitioner. It had further held that promissory note was properly stamped. These findings have also been upheld by the High Court in the above-mentioned appeal. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.
5. In support of the petition Syed Mushtaq Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the respondent is a money-lender and as he did not possess any licence at the time of the filing of the suit, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. This point was not taken in the Courts below. It is a new point and is a mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the petition before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us that the finding of the Courts below on the issues framed by the trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. We are satisfied that the finding on the above-mentioned issues is supported by reliable evidence and no exception can be taken to it. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.