' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The grounds on which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing, have been noted in the admitting order dated 7-3-2002. The record of the case was requisitioned and is available with us. The facts of this case are straightforward. The allegation made by the appellant is that he had, in fact, deposited a sum of Rs,34,00,000 with the respondent-Bank.
According to the appellant, he had made payment of the amount to one Salman Azam, an employee of the respondent-Bank. To support this contention reliance was placed, on a receipt dated 23-10-1998 allegedly executed by the said Salman Azam. The said receipt has not been proved. The two witnesses to the receipt have not been produced in Court. Furthermore, even the alleged signatures of Salman Azam do not match the signatures under which another receipt had been issued by him. In the circumstances, the learned Banking Court rightly held that the appellant had not been able to prove payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs,34,00,000 as alleged by him.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, laid stress on a statement made on behalf of the respondent-Bank by its learned counsel. The circumstances in which that statement was made, have been fully narrated in the second execution petition filed by the respondent-Bank. It is obvious that the onus to prove payment of Rs,34,00,000 to the Bank lay heavily on the appellant.
Since the appellant had relied on the receipt, referred to above, it was incumbent upon him to prove the same. The appellant could not have placed reliance on the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank which clearly was made on the basis that the parties had entered into an agreement whereunder the appellant had made part payment of the decretal debt, while the balance had to be paid in instalments.
3. After examining the original record, we are not in the slightest doubt that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on him. Although he led evidence, he did not produce the so- called marginal witnesses who had signed the receipt allegedly executed by Salman Azam on behalf of the respondent-Bank. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the Bank has referred to various documents on record including an application by the appellant showing the appellant's admission that the decree had not been satisfied and also his intent to make payment of the decretal debt if time is allowed to him.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we, therefore, find that the impugned order is not open to exception.
This appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed.