' A suit for recovery of Rs.1,21,000 instituted by the respondent under Order 37, C.P.C., on the basis of a promissory note dated 25-1-2001, has been decreed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh against the petitioner to the extent of Rs.1,00,000 vide judgment and decree dated 22-2-2003. This is first appeal there against.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment under appeal is illegal inasmuch the execution of the promissory note was not proved in accordance with law and that even Issue No.4 was wrongly framed. Reference has been made by him to Syed Haider Aabdi v.
Syed Javed Aabdi 1986 M LD 2298. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the execution of the promissory note was duly proved by the depositions of marginal witnesses/scribe and that the learned District Judge has decreed the suit on correct appreciation of the evidence. Reference has been made by him to Muhammad Afzal v.
Muhammad Aslam 1994 CLC 1465; Allah Rakha v. Muhammad Amin and 2 others 1995 CLC 1494; Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Nawaz 2001 CLC 318 and Manzoor Ahmad v. Ghulam Nabi 2001 CLC 1455.
3. The record has been received. Perusal of the file of the trial Court shows that issues in the case were framed on 8-1-2002 in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. No objection was raised to the form, scope and the content of the issues. Even from the conduct of the parties it is evident that they produced evidence of their choice and to their satisfaction. Issues Nos.1 to 4 were comprehensive enough to cover the controversy. The parties were fully aware of the controversy and the appellant had full opportunity of producing evidence, no prejudice has been caused to.
Him. He appeared himself as D.W.1 and produced his mother as D.W.2. Thus no legitimate basis exist now to raise any such objection.
4. In view of the controversy as to execution/ non-execution of promissory note Issues Nos. 1 and 4 were of relevance and importance, which read as under:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,21,000 from the defendant on the basis of promissory note dated 25-1-2001? OPP
(4) Whether the promissory note dated 25-1-2001 is fictitious and bogus? OPD ' In order to succeed in the suit the respondent/plaintiff had to prove the execution of promissory note whereas the appellant/defendant was required to prove his assertion that the same was fictitious and bogus. Thus both these issues were taken together by the learned District Judge, who in view of the testimony of Raja Muntazir Mehdi, Advocate, P.W.1 the Scribe, Abdul Ghafoor, P.W.3 a marginal witness, the statement of the plaintiff/respondent as P.W.2 coupled with the statement of Muhammad Afzal P.W.4 and Muhammad Gulzar P.W.5, reached the conclusion that the execution of promissory note had been proved. The assertion of the appellant/defendant that the same was fictitious and bogus remained unsubstantiated. Even no attempt was made by him for comparison of his signatures. His simple denial in the presence of the depositions of Raja Muntazir Mehdi, P. W.1, the scribe and Abdul Ghafoor P.W.3 marginal witness was of little credence. It is worth noting that the appellant had at one stage filed a declaratory suit qua the promissory note, which was dismissed on 5-11-2002 vide order of the Court Exh.P.3, which dismissal had attained finality. The findings on both these issues i.e. Issues Nos.1 and 4 recorded by the learned District Judge, thus ate based on proper appreciation of the evidence. Insofar as Issues Nos.2 and 3 are concerned onus thereof was upon the appellant/defendant and findings have rightly been recorded against him by the Court. The judgment and decree thus calls for no interference.
' As result, the appeal is dismissed.