' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This order will dispose of two Civil Appeals by leave bearing No, 1038/90 and 1039/90.
1. The appellant filed two suits for recovery of the amounts alleged to have been advanced as loan to the respondents. After the trial, the suits were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment and decree dated 22-3-1982. The appellant filed two appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgments and decrees dated 4-6-1985.
The appellant then filed two civil revisions in the Lahore High Court, both of which were dismissed in limine by a learned Judge who further observed that "Before parting with the judgment I feel constrained to observe that despite its fmding that the forged documents were produced in evidence by the petitioner-Bank and the witnesses namely Fakhar-e-Alam, Safdar Salim, Asad Raza Gardezi and Mukhtar All had not given true evidence, the trial Court had not taken any action against them. The office will open separate file on criminal side, original side and place the same before me for necessary orders". This is vide order dated 25-6-1988. Hence these appeals.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record with his assistance. The alleged mortgage deeds were registered in Shorkot on 16-7-1971 and account with five rupees was opened at Bahawalpur the same day and that very day payment was made.
Thereafter, no transaction took place. Accounts were closed by the end of in the final year on 1-1- 1972. Suits were filed on 15-4-1976. There is nothing on the record how all this happened at two places same day and nothing happened thereafter for nearly five years. No good ground has been shown to interfere in the adverse concurrent findings of facts by the three Courts. However, the observations quoted above are not borne out from the finding of the learned first appellant _ Court as it was observed that "the execution of documents Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3 is therefore, not proved to the hilt". In other words, the learned first appellate Court only held that the appellant had failed to prove its case against the respondents. In the circumstances of the case we do not think that it was justifiable to order opening of separate files on criminal side against the persons named in aforequoted observations of the learned High Court.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed but the observations aforequoted are set aside.
Since nobody has appeared to oppose the appeal there shall be no order as to costs.