' In this appeal the judgment and decree of Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, dated 5-6-1979 is challenged whereby the suit of the respondent for Rs,36,600 had been decreed with costs. The respondent had filed suit for recovery of Rs,36,600. An amount of Rs,9,600 were due to him from the appellant upto 3-2-1976 on account of sale of buffaloes and then 8 buffaloes were sold to the appellant for Rs,27,000 and thereafter 4 buffaloes for Rs,14,550 were purchased by the appellant from the respondent. However, the appellant was alleged to have paid Rs,14,200 towards the cost of buffaloes purchased for Rs,14,550. There was an averment in the plaint that an agreement had been executed between the appellant and the respondent on 3-2-1976 for payment of Rs,36,600 by the appellant to respondent.
2. The appellant had denied that he executed the agreement of payment of Rs,36,600 and had stated that account between the parties had been concluded on 25-9-1974 and Rs,13,750 had been paid by the appellant to the respondent which were due on account of purchase of buffaloes between them.
3. The issues in respect of purchase of buffaloes and execution of a document on 3-2-1976 were framed. The parties led their evidence. The plaintiff produced one Abdul Rahman, Clerk Stamp Office who produced the register of non-Judicial Stamp papers maintained by Karamatullah, Stamp Vendor for January and February which showed a sale of Rs,10 Stamp Paper to one Abdul Rehman son of Allah Mehar, Quarter No,172, Korangi Karachi. A photo copy of which is Exh.
6. There was no cross-examination worth the name against this witness and he was only asked the question whether any stamp papers could be purchased by a third person in the name of some other person. Witness No,2 for the plaintiff was Karamatullah who was Stamp Vendor and he stated that he had sold Rs,10 stamp paper to Abdul Rehman and that Abdul Rehman had signed on the said stamp paper and that he knew Abdul Rehman who was present in Court on that day and the entry was Exh.
5. He also stated that he had written an agreement Exh.8 on the said stamp paper and the same is bearing signature of Abdul Reiman and Abdul Shakoor. This witness was asked several questions about attestation of document by Notary Public but they are of no consequence. However, he admitted that he had not signed as writer on the said agreement Exh. 8 but this was of no consequence as he had simply stated in his cross-examination-in-chief that he had signed the said agreement as Stamp Vendor. He denied the suggestion that he did not know Abdul Rahman.
He denied that he ever visited the house of Abdul Shakoor and he denied that Abdul Rehman had never come to him. He also denied that Abdul Rehman and Abdul Shakoor had not signed before him. Consequently there is nothing of any consequence which was gained in the cross- examination of this witness by the defendant. The plaintiff Abdul Shakoor examined himself as P.W.3 and stated that there had been dealings between him and the appellant and upto 19-7-1974 the defendant had to pay Rs,28,000 but it was settled at Rs,14,000 and he produced an agreement Exh. 10 which shows that the previous liability of the appellant was settled at Rs,13,700 as on 25-9- 1974. He stated that he had sold further buffaloes to the defendant and that at one time 4 buffaloes were sold and then 8 buffaloes were sold and an agreement, whereby the defendant had acknowledged the liability of Rs,36,600, was executed out of which the defendant had not paid anything. He stated that Karamatullah was present there and that the said agreement Exh. 8 bears his signature and signature of defendant. In cross-examination the plaintiff had made some confused statement that he had sold 8 buffaloes to the defendant in 1974 and then 21 months thereafter he had sold 4 buffaloes to the defendant and then stated that he had sold 8 buffaloes to the defendant in the second month of 1976 but then he finally corrected himself by making a statement that the last version was true. He, therefore, stated in cross-examination that from 1974 to 1976 he had sold in all 12 buffaloes to the defendant. He had admitted contents of Exhs. 10 and 11 which pertain to 1974. He denied the suggestion that the agreement was forged.
4. Defendant Abdul Rehman examined himself and stated that on 24-9-1974 he had settled the account with the plaintiff and he had paid Rs,13,700 and he produced agreement and receipt of Rs,13,700 to the effect. He stated that he stopped doing any business. However, the most surprising thing in the statement of the defendant was that he did not make any statement denying that he had purchased the stamp paper on which the agreement Exh.8 had been written nor did he deny his alleged signature on agreement Exh .8 and nor did he still deny his alleged signature on Exh .6 and the register of Stamp Vendor, Karamat ullah .
5.The learned Judge has come to the finding that the agreement and receipt of 1974 were not of any consequence because they were of previous date to 1976 and he had come to the conclusion that the Stamp paper was purchased by Abdul Rehman and that the statement that signature of defendant, namely Abdul Rehman, on Exh.8, the disputed document acknowledging the liability of Rs,36,600 by Abdul Rehman, tallied with the signature on Exh.6 as well as with the signature on the written statement filed by him.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant apart from pointing out one confusion in the statement of plaintiff, where he stated that he had sold 8 buffaloes to the defendant before selling 4 buffaloes could not challenge it otherwise. But even this contention is of no consequence because the plaintiff had eventually corrected the statement' as given in the plaint. There is nothing else to be pointed out for the respondent in challenging decree amount before me. The learned Civil Judge had the power under section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures which he has done and he has found the disputed signature tallied with the admitted signature. The learned counsel for the appellant was not able to make a serious challenge to the comparison. The comparison seems to have been fair and the Civil Judge was justified in his comparison. Moreover, what is more important is the fact that plaintiff as well as Karamatullah had made a definite statement that defendant had signed over Exh. 8 and Karamatullah had further stated that the defendant had signed over Exh. 6 and in such circumstances since the defendant had alleged in written statement that he had not signed that document, therefore, it was for him to state that he had in fact not signed that document particularly when his signatures had been positively identified by two witnesses. But he did not make any statement on oath about his signature on Exh. 8 and Exh. 6 and merely made general denial of having had no dealings after 1974. In these circumstances there was no option for the Civil Judge except to treat as sufficient proof the statements of the plaintiff and witness Karamatullah, both of whom have made unequivocal statements that Exh.8 was signed by Abdul Rehman. In fact once defendant had admitted that he has had dealings with the plaintiff then the case of the plaintiff appeared to be plausible, to the extent that dealings between the parties had continued and since there had been dealings up to 1974 therefore, if there had been dealings after 1974, in 1976, then those dealings could again be on credit as duly proved in this case.
' In these circumstances this appeal is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.