' This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs,1,00,000 filed by Ghulam Haider, plaintiff/appellant under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Against Zafar Ullah Khan, respondent on the basis of a promissory note and an agreement allegedly executed by the defendant on 18-8-1992. Zafar Ullah Khan defendant after obtaining leave to defend the suit filed a written statement in which he refuted the claim of the plaintiff and raised a number of preliminary objection. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and does not deserve any relief? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is based on mala fide? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of rupees one lac. On the basis of pronote in question? OPP
(6) Whether the pronote is without consideration? OPD
(7) Relief.
' The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence brought on the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the promissory note was with consideration.
Accordingly Issue No,6 has been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Consequently the suit has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant in his application for leave to defend the suit had not denied the execution of the promissory note specifically as such the execution of the documents would be deemed to have been admitted which is otherwise established from the statements of Ajmal Khan (P.W.3) the scribe and the two marginal witnesses Muhammad Hussain (P.W.2) and Manzoor Elahi (P.W.4). He also argued that the learned trial Court has omitted to give findings on Issues Nos,1 to 4. Therefore, the case may be remitted to the trial Court for recording separate findings and deciding the case afresh.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plaintiffs evidence in regard to the payment of consideration is inconsistent as such the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue No,6 needs no interference and the omission to record finding on the remaining issues is of no consequence.
4. I have made reappraisal of the plaintiffs evidence. Javed Akhtar being the son as well as the attorney of Ghulam Haider plaintiff appeared in the witness-box as P.W.1. He deposed that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs,1,00,000 for his business from his father on 18th August, 1990 and executed a pronote Exh. P.B. And agreement Exh. P.B. Which was drawn by Azmat petition-writer.' In cross-examination he stated that the defendant obtained Rs,1,00,000 from his father in his presence before Azmat P.W. And at that time Muhammad Hussain, Manzoor Elahi, his brother Farooq were also present. Muhammad Hussain (P.W.2) deposed about the execution of Exh.P.B. And Exh.P.C. But omitted to mention the presence of Javaid Akhtar (P.W.1) at the relevant time. Azmat Khan P.W.3 and Manzoor Elahi (P.W.4) to the extent of the execution of the documents. He categorically denied the passing of money in their presence. Thus the plaintiffs evidence being patently inconsistent has been rightly disbelieved.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly argued that the omission of the trial Court to record finding on other issues is of no consequence. Therefore, it would be futile to remand the case back to the trial Court. There is no substance in this appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed.