' On 25-6-1995, the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs,1,50,000. The suit was filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. According to the plaint, the parties were known to each other and the appellant represented to the respondent that he would send his sons to U.S.A. And also get them employed there. A sum of Rs,2,50,000 was demanded for the purpose. The respondent, however, advanced a sum of Rs,1,50,000 to the appellant in presence of witnesses who executed a promote in acknowledgment. However, the appellant failed to arrange the visas and neither did he pay back the amount received. Thus, the suit was filed for the recovery of the same. The appellant was served in the manner prescribed and he applied for grant of leave to appear and to defend which was granted to him vide an order, dated 24-10-1995 subject to furnishing of security in the suit amount. Thereafter, he filed a written statement denying the execution of the promote and receipt of consideration. On 10-3-1996 the learned trial Court framed the following issues: "Issues:
(1) Whether the defendant is liable for the payment of Rs,1,50,000 on the basis of promote, dated 22-7-1992 to the plaintiff?OPP
(2) Whether the plaint of the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in this Court? OPD
(4) Whether the promote in question is a forged document and without any consideration? OPD
(5) Relief.
' Later the appellant amended his written statement with leave of Court and after filing of the amended written statement, following additional issues were framed on 24-11-1997.
Additional Issues: 4-A Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 4-B Whether the suit is barred by law? OPD 4-C Whether the plaintiff is moneylender and he has got no licence of money-lending, if so, its effect? OPD ' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide a judgment and decree, dated 2-3-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in fact, no pronote had been executed by the appellant and there is no evidence on record in support of the allegation that the amount of the pronote was paid by the respondent to the appellant. Further contends that all the Revenue Stamps on the pronote Exh.P-1 had not been cancelled and as such the same was not admissible in evidence.
' Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that the pronote Exh.P-1 and receipt Exh.P-2 were duly proved on the record as also the receipt of consideration.
3. I have gone through the records of the learned trial Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The pronote is on record as Exh.-1 while the receipt is Exh.P-2. In fact, it is a common sort of document in printed form. The pronote and the receipt stand executed on the face of the same document comprising of a single page. It cannot, therefore, be said that the pronote was not produced or proved. The matter is further clarified by the evidence of. The marginal witnesses who are Muhammad Saeed P. N.1 and Muhammad Akram P.W.3. Both the witnesses have stated on oath that the parties are known to them; that a sum of Rs,1,50,000 was paid by the respondent to the appellant who noted down in his own hands his name and address and put his signatures as well as thumb-impressions thereon.' Both the witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but nothing material could come out. P.W.2 Muhammad Umar is the scribe of the pronote. He is the son of the respondent. It has been suggested to him that he is not a regular Waseeqa Navees. However, the said suggestion is meaningless. The pronote is in fact in a printed form and only required to be filled up at the relevant places. P.W.4 is the respondent. He has made his statement in line with his plaint. I find an astonishing aspect of the cross-examination of this witness that it was suggested to him that the signatures and thumb-impressions of the appellant were obtained on the plain pronote. This suggestion, obviously given by the learned counsel under instructions of the appellant goes a long way to show the falsity and hollowness of the denial pleaded by him. I do not find any rebuttal to the said evidence on record and as such there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the execution pronote as well as receipt Exh.P-1 and Exh.P-2 and also the payment of consideration. The impugned judgment is in perfect accord with the evidence on record and does not suffer from misreading and non-reading thereof. So far as the objection of the learned counsel as to the non-cancellation of the Revenue Stamps is concerned, I find that all the Revenue Stamps on Exh.P1 stands cancelled and in any case no objection was raised while the document was admitted to evidence. Then the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the specific signatures and thumb-impressions of the appellant were obtained and placed in a sealed envelope which is on record. Learned counsel prays that the same be got compared with the signatures and thumb-impressions on the pronote Exh.P-1. The envelope is stitched at page 153 of the file of the trial Court. It appears that the envelope was so placed on the file somewhere before 30-4-1998 which was a date of hearing in the suit. I have gone through the order sheet and I do not find any insistence on the part of the appellant to get his said signatures/thumb-impressions compared with those on the pronote. Be that as it may, I have already observed that there is sufficient evidence on record to decide the material issues in the suit and as such I do not really find any need to undertake the said exercise. No other point has been urged. The R.F.A. Is accordingly dismissed with costs.