' This regular second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Bhikan, against the appellants, Mst. Fazal Bibi and others, for recovery of Rs,700. It was alleged by the respondent that he had given Rs, 700 to late Abdul Ghafoor, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, on the basis of a promissory note, executed by him (Abdul Ghafoor) but on demand the appellants had declined to pay back the money. It was denied by the appellants that their predecessor-in-interest had executed promissory note in question or got Rs, 700 from the respondent. After usual trial, the suit was dismissed by a Civil Judge. The respondent went in appeal before an Additional District Judge who accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the verdict of the learned appellate Court the appellants have come up in second appeal to this Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that while deciding the appeal the learned Additional District Judge had not taken into consideration the evidence of the handwriting expert, Asghar Ali Shah (D.W.1) who was examined by them to establish that the promissory note, Exh.P.1 did not bear the signature of Abdul Ghafoor. I have gone through the statement of the said expert. The respondent had also examined a handwriting expert, Hafeez Ullah Butt (P.W.5) who deposed that the promissory note had been signed by Abdul Ghafoor. The learned Additional District Judge did not place reliance on the handwriting expert examined by the appellants due to the reason that he is more experienced on the finger print side than on the hand writing side. This reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge is supported by the statement of Asghar All Shah in which it was stated by him that he had worked in the Finger Print Bureau for 27 years but has worked as handwriting expert in the Courts for about 14 years. In this state of affairs, the statement of the expert examined by the appellants does not cut much ice.
3. By the time the dispute was taken to Court Abdul Ghafoor, the executant of the promissory note died. Execution of promissory note was, therefore, proved by Ghazanfar Zaidi (P.W.1) who was the scribe of the promissory note. This he was competent to do. Besides, the respondent examined Muhamad Ibrahim, Stamp Vendor (P.W.3) who stated that the stamped paper on which the promissory note in question was scribed was purchased by Abdul Ghafoor from him. There is also other supporting evidence produced by the respondent.
4. In regard to the Stamp Vendor it was submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that he had demanded half of the amount in question for making statement in favour of the appellants. In this connection, he made reference to his writing, Exh.D.1. This writing bears nothing but the following proverb which is generally quoted:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Perhaps attention of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was .Drawn to the said proverb with a view to suggesting to him that he may pay to the respondent half of the amount in question and avoid the payment of balance thereof. There is nothing in this writing indicating that the Stamp .Vendor wanted half of the amount himself. Be that it may this writing does not make his statement unreliable. I, therefore, see no reason to discard his statement.
5. The entire evidence on the record was examined by the learned Additional District Judge before reversing finding of the learned Civil Judge and I find nothing wrong with the reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge.
6. To my mind, judgment and decree under challenge appear to be unexceptionable. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.