MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.10,000/-, alleged to have been given to the appellant as a loan and as a consequence thereof a promissory note Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 dated 2.1.1973 having been executed by the respondent/defendant. Defendant-respondent categorically denied of having received any such amount of money or execution of the document mentioned above. Out of the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed and the material issue in this regard is issue No. 3 i.e. Whether' the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?OPP.
Parties produced evidence and the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1977 passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Defendant filed an appeal against the said decree which was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhang vide a judgment and decree dated 27.2.1978 and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the Appellate Court has grossly misread the evidence on record on issue No.3 because it was duly proved by the petitioner that a loan of Rs.10,000/- was given to the respondent who in lieu thereof had executed Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. it is stated that these two documents have been proved by the independent witness such as Salehon (PW-1) who is scribe of the document; he stated in his examination in chief that the defendant had thumb marked these two documents after verifying the correctness of the same.
However, during the cross-examination, he said that the documents were executed in the village to which the plaintiff belong i.e. Village Burj Bibal) and he was taken there by the plaintiff who had told him to write the promissory note and the receipt. He also stated that at the time, the defendant was not present, as also that he did not knew the identity of the defendant and had not seen him before that and had for the first time, seen the defendant during the trial of the case, it is further stated that he filled in the forms Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 which already had thumb impression thereon.
3. Further Ahmed has appeared as PW-2 who claims to be a marginal witness of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 but accepted that he has not thumb marked any of these two documents, in his cross- examination, he stated that these documents were executed between the parties at the house of Salehon (PW-1) which is far away from the village of the petitioner.
4. As to prove the payment of Rs.10,000/- as loan to the defendant, heavy burden was on the shoulder of the plaintiff to prove in affirmative not only the payment but also execution of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. As stated above there are material contradiction in the statement of these two witnesses due to which it cannot be safely said that Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were executed by the defendant. Moreover when defendant appeared ad DW-2, he was not controverted with the documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 to the effect that the said documents borne his thumb impression.
Findings of the learned Trial Court are definitely result of mis-reading of evidence which were minutely examined by the Appellate Court.
5. I do not find any reason to reverse the findings of the learned Addl. District Judge which are result Of proper reading of evidence. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1978 of learned Addl. District Judge. No order as to the costs.