Through the filing of this first appeal. the appellant/plaintiff has called in question judgment and decree dated 30-6-2001, whereby the learned Additional District Judge Jhang, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs,24,000 filed against the responded.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant, on 2-9-2000, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,24,000 against the respondent. under the summary , procedure. as prescribed under Order XXXVIL C.P.C. before the learned District Jhang. on the basis of a promissory note. It was submitted by him that the respondent obtained 'sum of Rs,24.000 as loan from him before two witnesses, executed a promissory note and the fact of non-payment of the said amount. necessitated the filing of the suit. The respondent entered appearance and tiled an application for leave to appear and defend the suit which was granted to him by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, subject to furnishing of the surety. Thereafter, the respondent filed the written statement thereby denying the execution of the promissory note and the fact of obtaining any loan from the appellant.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs,24,000 to the defendant, and the defendant executed the alleged pronote and receipt dated 14-6-1999 in his tavour? OPP
(2) Whether the alleged promissory note and receipt are the result of fraud and forgery and the same are without consideration? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has neither any locus standi nor cause of action of bring this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD 5) Relief.
In order to prove the Issuer No, I the appellant produced two witnesses, who are statedly, the marginal witnesses of the demand promissory note, appeared as P.W.2 and P.W.3, whereas the appellant himself appeared as P.W.1. On the other hand. the respondent himself appeared as D.W.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that although the appellant has been able to prove the execution of the promissory note by producing two marginal witnesses, who consistently deposed about the execution of the promissory note by the respondent, yet the learned Additional District Judge has illegally dismissed the suit of the appellant, not taking into consideration the evidence on record and completely oblivious of the law on the subject. Conversely. the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no independent witnesses has been produced by the appellant in order to saddle the respondent with the liability of the suit amount and to prove the execution of the demand promissory note, which was a result of fraud and forgery.
5. Record of the learned trial Court was summoned and the same has been perused.
6. Upon the examination of the statements of the witnesses, I find that the appellant (P.W.1) has admitted that Zulfiqar (P.W.3) and Murtaza (P.W.2) are the first cousins of the appellant. He has further admitted that Zulfigar got a criminal case registered against one Ghulam Shabbir, who is the son of the respondent and that the sons of the appellant namely. ljaz and Aftab are the witnesses on behalf of P.W.3. He has further admitted that the said case is still pending. However, he has denied the suggestion that he promised the marriage of her daughter with Ghulam Shabbir. who is the maternal nephew of the appellant. He has further deposed that the amount of Rs,24.000 was given to the respondent in District Courts, Jhang at about 11.00 a.m. He has shown his ignorance about which purpose the amount was borrowed by the respondent. P.W.2 has stated that the respondent took the loan of Rs,24.000 from the appellant and he executed the pronote and the receipt and the respondent put his thumb-mark on Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 in his presence. This witnesses admits that the appellant is his first cousin. This witness has changed his stance many a times as on which place the appellant cultivates the land. In cross-examination this witness stated that Exh.P. 1 and Exh.P.2 were got written in District Courts before him but he is not able to give the name of the scribe, however. stated that he knows the place where the scribe does his business.
P.W.2 admits that P.W.3 got a criminal case registered against the son of the respondent and the sons of the appellant are the witnesses against said Ghulam Shabbir P.W.3 has verbatimly repeated the statement of P.W.2. However, in cross-examination he admits that he got a criminal case registered against Ghulam Shabbir wherein the sons of the appellant are the witnesses and that the case is still pending.
7. Upon the dissection of the evidence produced by the appellant/plaintiff, it is evident that although all the witnesses state that a sum of Rs,24,000 was borrowed by the respondent. and he executed the pronote as well as the receipt, but they are unanimous on the point that they are first cousins inter se and the respondent is the brother-in-law of the appellant. They also admit that Zulfiqar got a criminal case registered against Ghulam Shabbir. the son of respondent, wherein the `sons of the appellant. namely, Ijaz and Aftab are the witnesses on behalf of Zulfiqar. The tenor of the witnesses amply manifests that they are the tutored witnesses and they appear to have hatched a conspiracy against the respondent. On the one hand, a criminal case was pending against aforesaid Ghulam Shabbir at the instance of P.W.3. statedly, witnessed by the sons of the appellant and on the other hand a sum of Rs,24.000 was paid to the respondent by the appellant who in view of his own statement does not appear to be the man of means so as to give an amount of Rs,24,000 as loan. He has admitted in his statement that he is a (a!! f) cultivates the land of some other persons and does not own his land. Under the circumstances, it is not believable that a person who is living hand to mouth. having five children could lend an amount for Rs,24,000 to a person (respondent) against whose son a criminal case has been got registered wherein his sons are the star witnesses. Furthermore, it has been alleged in the written statement that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the marriage of the daughter of the appellant with the son of the respondent. The appellant did not produce any independent witness to prove the execution of the demand promissory-note and the receipt. All the witnesses are interested, co- related and have a common interest in order to entangle the respondent in the litigation. From the facts which have come on record, through the evidence, it cannot be believed that the appellant would have given an amount of Rs,24,000 to the respondent. I am of the view that the appellant has connived to file a suit for the recovery of Rs,24,000 inter alia, on the reasons that a sum of Rs,24,000 is exempted from the payment of court-fee. In view of the tenor of the statement of all the witnesses their veracity is highly doubtful and cannot be believed. so as to saddle a person with a liability of Rs,24.000 who has been involved in a criminal case and with whom some dispute about the marriage has come on record.
8. After the examination of the record of the case and the perusal of the statement of the witnesses I have come to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus of issues. which was initially laid down upon him and thus. he is not able to shift the onus upon the respondent calling upon him to rebut the same. The suit appears to be a concocted one. a manipulation and the result of conspiracy.
9. I have' examined the impugned judgment wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and having discussed the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor the marginal witnesses are reliable and it is not believable that the appellant has advanced any loan to the respondent. The judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, is unexceptionable, legal, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and do not call for any interference by this Court and I have no reasons to disagree with the findings rendered by the learned trial Court.
10.In view of the above discussion the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to i bear their own costs.