' Through this appeal, the appellant-defendant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 8-10- 2001 whereby the suit filed by respondent for recovery of an amount Rs.5,46,593 under Orier XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code has been decreed on the basis of a promissory note.
2. To prove the pronote (Exh.P.1) and the receipt (Exh.P.2) not only the two marginal witnesses of the receipt were examined, the plaintiff-respondent also appeared in the witness-box. Bagh Ali, the petition writer, was also examined as P.W.4. He claimed to have written the pronote Exh.P.1 and receipt Exh.P.2 at the instance of Irshad Hussain-appellant, which were read over and explained to him who had signed and put his thumb-impression thereon and that the witnesses had also signed it. The respondent had denied execution of the receipt and the pronote, had asserted that these documents were outcome of fraud and forgery and were fabricated as defence to the F.I.R.
Lodged by the appellant and a civil suit filed by him, inter alia, against the respondent. In support of his case he appeared as his own witness as D.W.1 and examined Iqbal Hussain as D.W.2, according to D.W.2 he had appeared before the Crimes Branch, Faisalabad, where writing mark "A" was executed between the parties to the suit. Copy of the F.I.R. No.582 of 1987 and the copy of the suit titled Irshad Hussain v. Shumail Akram and others were produced as Exh.D.1 and D.2.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that while P.W.1 was a real brother of the plaintiff- respondent, P.W.2 was a servant of the respondent and, therefore, their testimony could not have been believed which was otherwise discrepant. As far as the scribe P.W.4 is concerned, his contention is that his name did not appear on the pronote or the receipt as scribe nor it was registered in his register as admitted by him. He further contended that the receipt and pronote were forged by the plaintiff-respondent because he was annoyed on account of registration of criminal case and a civil suit filed by the appellant against the respondent and five others.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who has appeared at the limine stage, submits that the receipt and promissory note had been proved by legal evidence and no evidence was led in rebuttal to substantiate the plea of fraud and forgery.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any material factor to discredit the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4. If receipts and pronote were forged as alleged, the appellant could call finger print and hand writing expert to rebut the execution of Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that if execution of a document is proved, by legal evidence, it could not only be rebutted by legal evidence. We have also seen the F.I.R. Exh.D.1. The criminal case was lodged by the appellant on 19-11-1997. According to the allegations in the F.I.R. He had got booked a Tractor through the respondent which was misappropriated by the respondent. The civil suit was filed by the appellant for a declaration of his title to the, tractor. Criminal action initiated by the appellant or the civil suit filed by the appellant did not in any manner prove that the receipt and the pronote were forged. Perusal of the statement of the appellant shows that civil suit filed by him was withdrawn. He also admitted in his statement that he had paid the instalments of Rs.3,20,000 on 12- 5-2001 and Rs.1 lac on 14-5-2001 for the tractor. The payment of instalments for the tractor demolishes the plea of the appellant that the tractor was misappropriated by the respondent and as defence to the criminal action, the suit was brought against him.
6. For what has been stated above, we are satisfied that the plaintiff-respondent had fully proved this case and the suit was rightly decreed. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.