' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.-Respondent, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,2,20,500 alongwith the interest against the appellant, which was decreed by the trial Court on 26-7-1994.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are that the respondent-company deals in the sale of pesticides; according to the plaint, the appellant/defendant purchased pesticides from the plaintiff in the year 1986, and was to pay Rs,2,20,500 as a price of the goods; the appellant signed the Delivery Challan No,004722 dated 28-9-1986, in acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods. In order to secure the price of the goods, the appellant also executed a Cheque No,383890 dated 31- 12-1986, for an amount of Rs,2,26,800 drawn on Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, and executed a pronote and affidavit dated 28-9-1986. But subsequently, though the goods were supplied to the appellant, he did not pay the aforesaid amount, therefore, the suit was filed. The appellant/defendant, in the written statement, refuted the allegations/averments of the plaint, and had set up a defence, that though he had executed a cheque, but this was only meant for the purposes of security for the future supply of the goods from the respondent/plaintiff which supplies were not made; he, however, denied the execution of the pronote and also the affidavit. Besides, the appellant, also objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Lahore; on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not competent in view of preliminary objections Nos,2 and 3 raised by the defendant in his written statement? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections Nos,4, 5 and 6 of the written statement? OPD
(4) Whether the Delivery Challan No, 004722 dated 28-9-1986 was executed and signed by the defendant? OPP
(5) Whether the suit has been competently filed? OPP
(6) Whether the suit is mala fide and whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?
OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff-company is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? OPP
(8) Relief.
' Respondent, examined Muhammad Akram, the Regional Manager of the plaintiff-company as P.W.1, P.W.2/Hafiz Muhammad Nazir, who is the Superintendent of the plaintiff, whereas Mr. A.R.
Mubashar, Manager Commercial appeared as P.W.3, as attorney of the plaintiff. Besides. The Delivery Challan No,004722 dated 28-9-1986 was adduced in evidence as Exh. P.1, pronote as Exh.
P.2, Cheque No,383890 dated 31-12-1986 as Exh. P.3 and the affidavit as Exh. P.4. Conversely, the appellant examined Muhammad Zafar as D.W.1, he is the marginal witness of the Exh. P.2, the receipt of the pronote and the affidavit Exh. P.4, who denied of his signatures on the said documents and that of the appellant as well. Appellant, himself appeared as D.W.2, and stated that he has never executed the pronote or the, affidavit, but did not in the examination-in-chief depose that he had not affixed his signatures on Exh. P.1; however, in the cross-examination he denies of his signing Exh. P.1, the delivery challan. It may be pertinent to state here, that the appellant, has admitted the issuance of the cheque, Exh. P.3, but pleaded in defence, that this was meant for the security, for the future supply of the goods by the respondent, which goods were not supplied to him. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree, mentioned above, allowed the suit in the following terms:-- "14. As a result of my findings on these issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant alongwith the profit at the Bank rate of profit per annum for which the Cheque No, 383890. Dated 31-12-1986 was issued. The defendant is to bear the whole costs."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the documents Exhs. P.1, P.2 and P.4, have not been proved in accordance with law. D.W.1, the marginal witness of Exhs.P.2 and P.4, has denied his signatures on the said documents, therefore, the respondent, had failed to prove on record the valid execution of the documents. This aspect of the matter, has been totally ignored by the learned trial Court, and thus, the judgment and decree pronounced, is result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence. The learned counsel, has not dilated on the findings of the learned trial Court on other issues including the issue of jurisdiction, therefore, the only issue which remains for determination is Issue No,4.
4. According to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 the appellant had signed the documents Exhs. P.1, P.2 and P.4 in their presence; no significant cross-examination has been made on these depositions. Besides, in the examination-in-chief, the appellant has not refuted or controverted his signatures on Exh.P.1. The most significant aspect of the matter is the issuance of the cheque Exh.
P.3 which is admitted by the appellant. From the entire evidence on record, it fully stands established, that the appellant had placed order for the supply of the pesticides, mentioned in the delivery Challan No,004722 dated 28-9-1986, which goods were dispatched to the appellant, through Wagon No, FDA-687 on the same date. The date of Exhs. P.2 and P.3, corresponds to the date of the delivery challan. It seems, that the appellant did not make the payment after the supply of the goods, and thereafter on 31-12-1986, issued the cheque to the respondent. Comparing the signature of the appellant, on the admitted cheque Exhs.P.3 with P.1, P.2 and P.4, we find that the signatures on all these documents, are the same. This is visible to a naked eye. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind, that all the documents, mentioned above, were duly executed by the appellant. It may also be mentioned that in the cross-examination of P.W.3, the appellant, has given a suggestion to the said witness, that the documents have been executed, not at Lahore but at Kamalia. This suggestion is an implied admission on the part of the appellant, for the execution of the pronote and the affidavit.
5. In the light of above, we do not find that any error in reading the evidence has been committed by the trial Court, therefore, by upholding the judgment and decree of the Court below, this appeal is dismissed.