' On 22-6-1986, Muhammad Akram respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs, 24,000 against Shahzad Humayun petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Faislabad. It has been averred in the plaint that in the year 1983, the petitioner/defendant obtained loan of Rs, 20,000 from the plaintiff vide bank draft bearing No, D.O./01/199435/02 dated 15-3-1983 with the promise to return the same within few months but despite repeated demands, he did not return the same. The plaintiff claimed Rs, 4,000 as damages in addition to the original loan money, i.e, Rs, 20,000. The suit was resisted whereon following issues were framed:-- ISSUES: "(I) Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs, 24,000 from the defendant on the grounds alleged in the plaint? OPP.
(3) Relief."
' Muhammad Akram plaintiff appeared as P.W.3. He produced Pervez Iqbal P.W.1, Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 and also tendered documents Exs. P1 and P2. To rebut this evidence, defendant/petitioner produced Khalid Anjum D.W.1, Abdul Hameed D.W.3. He, himself, appeared as D.W.2. He also produced documents Exs.D1, D2, D2/1 and D2/2. The trial Court granted decree of Rs, 20,000 against the petitioner/defendant on 11-10-1989. The appeal filed by him against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 17-6- 1990, hence this revision.
2. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the Courts below on all the issues.
He submitted that not only the petitioner/defendant resides in Islamabad but he had also received the money at Islamabad. So, the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. As for issue No,2, he maintained that the findings of the Courts suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence; that the amount of Rs, 20,000 received by the petitioner/defendant was towards his share in the sale proceed of the land conducted by the plaintiff/respondent as general attorney and was not loan.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. It was/is a suit for the recovery of loan money. The money was paid to the petitioner/defendant through draft, which was prepared and signed at Faisalabad. So, the cause of action had partly arisen there. Furthermore, the petitioner being a debtor must follow the creditor/respondent/plaintiff, and as such, the Court at Faisalabad where the respondent/plaintiff resides had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit of the plaintiff. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Faisalabad to try the suit is overruled. Issue No,2 is almost issue of fact. The Courts below have concurrently found this issue against the petitioner. After applying its conscious mind to the relevant evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusions that; "From the record it is proved that Rs, 20,000 were given by the plaintiff and received by the defendant, but the contention of the plaintiff with regard to the disputed amount that he gave it as a loan stands proved and the story made by the defendant seems to be concocted."
The Courts below were quite competent to believe/disbelieve the evidence produced by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the reasons given by the Courts below in support of their judgments and decrees. The learned counsel has also not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of material evidence by them. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees.
Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.