' This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant on 3-3-1965 against the respondent for the recovery of the amoutn of Rs,6,150. The suit was resisted by the respondent who filed his written statement in the Court which gave rise to the followng issues:--
(1) Whether plaintiff is a money-lender within the meaning of section 2(M) of West Pakistan Money Lenders Ordinance, 1960? If so, what is its effect on this suit? O.P.D.
(2) Whether plaint suffers from misjoinder of causes of actions? If so, what is its effect? O.P.D.
(3) Whether the contents of pronote dated 31-12-1964 were not read over to the defendant? If not, what is its effect? O.P.D.
(4) What amount is due to plaintiff from defendant? O.P.P.
(5) Relief.
' The trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and returned findings on issues Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of plaintiff/appellant and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15-2-1966. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the learned District Judge modified the findings on issue No,4 and held that the respondent was liable to pay only a sum of Rs,1,500. Consequently the appeal was partly allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13-5-1966. The decretal amount was reduced from Rs,5,160 to Rs,1,500 only.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record. The appellant had claimed that he had paid a sum of Rs,4,650 to the respondent through cheques. He produced counterfoils of cheques dated 9-9-1964 for Rs,500, dated 18-9-1964 for Rs,4,000 and dated 30-9-1964 for Rs,150 (Exhs.P.2 to P.4). Out of these counterfoils only two (Exh.P.2 and Exh.P.3) allegedly bear the respondent's signature while the 3rd one (Exh.P.4) does not bear her signature.
The signature purporting to be those of the respondent were attested by one Muhammad Sharif.
The respondent had denied her signatures on the counterfoils and receipt of money from the bank.
As the plaintiff had come to the Court to claim recovery of the amount paid by him to the respondent, the burden lay heavily on him to prove by reliable evidence that he had, in fact, delivered the cheques to the respondent and further that she had actually withdrawn the amount from the bank. No expert evidence was produced to prove that the counterfoils actually bore the respondent's signatures. Attesting witness Muhammad Sharif was not produced to establish receipt of cheques by the respondent. Hence the first appellate Court rightly held that the appellant/plaintff had failed to prove that he had handed over the cheques to the respondent.
Moreover, the evidence furnished by S.K. Abid P.W.2, the bank official does not reliably prove that the respondent had withdrawn the amount from the Bank. The said official did not clearly say that the respondent had herself received the amount. He admitted that some other woman posing as Mst. Nasim Akhtar might have got the cheques encashed.
3. In this view of the matter, the appellate Court was justified in reducing the decretal amount to Rs,1,500 only which was proved to have been received by the respondent on the basis of pronote (Exh.P.1). I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.