' On 22-2-1985 Riaz Hussain Shah, respondent, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,13,000 on the basis of written agreement Ex.P.1 against Amanat Ali, petitioner, in the Court of Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh. The suit was resisted whereon two issues were framed. The respondent/plaintiff produced Bashir Ahmad P.W.1, Nazir Ahmad P.W.2, Zameer Hussain P.W.3, Ghulam Hussain P.W.4 and he himself appeared as P.W.5 and tendered document Ex.P.1 in evidence. To rebut this evidence, the petitioner/defendant appeared as D.W.2. He produced Taj Muhammad D.W.1. The trial Court decreed the suit on 22-5-1988. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, on 13-9-1989, hence this revision.
2. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issue No, 1 only, which is as under:-
(1) Whether the agreement written between the parties on 7-6-1984 was valid, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,13,000 from the defendant through this suit?
' He argued that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from misreading/nonreading of the material evidence; that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of agreement Ex.P.1 by the petitioner/defendant: that since the signature on agreement Ex.P.1 was categorically denied by the defendant, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was obliged to produce and examine Handwriting Expert.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. After attending to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the evidence on record, I feel persuaded to reduce the decretal amount from Rs,13,000 to Rs,9,000 for the reasons that the plaintiff 'has not been able to prove through any reliable evidence that the petitioner/defendant had agreed to pay profit of Rs,4,000 in addition to the original loan of Rs,9,000.
Bashir Ahmad P.W.1 and Nazir Ahmad P.W.2 have not deposed about the agreement of the petitioner/defendant to pay Rs,4,000 in addition to Rs,9,000 received by him. Ghulam Hussain P.W.4 has stated that the petitioner after having received Rs,9,000 from Riaz Hussain Shah, plaintiff, had agreed to return him Rs,13,000 but in cross-examination, he stated {{URDU TEXT}} Riaz Hussain Shah has stated that after receiving Rs,9,000 from him for business, the petitioner/defendant had promised to return Rs,13,000 to him. Riaz Hussain Shah being a plaintiff was/is an interested person. So, the only reliable witness produced by the respondent/plaintiff was/is Nazir Ahmad P.W.2. He has stated that the petitioner/defendant had received Rs,9,000 from the respondent/plaintiff in his presence and had also signed Ex.P.1 in his presence. I do not see any reason to disbelieve him. The petitioner/defendant has not been able to rebut his evidence. Taj Muhammad D.W.1 stated that no money was paid by the respondent/plaintiff in his presence and that the agreement was false and forged. It may be noted here that he had neither scribed agreement Ex.P.1 nor he is a marginal witness of this document. Furthermore, it was/is not the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the agreement took place in his presence. Amanat All D.W.2 being a defendant is an interested witness. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/plaintiff was obliged to produce the Handwriting Expert is without force inasmuch as it is not a legal requirement. The execution of a document can be proved by the scribe of the documents and also by a marginal witness. In the instant case, Nazir Ahmad P.W.2 is the scribe of the document, so the document was proved according to law.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is partly accepted. The impugned decree of Rs,13,000 passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner/defendant is reduced to Rs,9,000.
With this modification, the revision is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.