Law:

Section:

Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)---S. 118---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery of money---Promissory note---Proof---Presumption---Finger print expert report---Defendant had not only signed but also affixed his thumb impression on promissory note as well as on the receipt but Trial Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Signatures of defendant could be disputed but finger prints had more sanctity, authenticity and reliability than the signatures---Report of finger print expert as well as presumption attached to promissory note under S.118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were in favour of plaintiff---Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of parties which required interference---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside the findings recorded by Trial Court and suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby suit of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs.9,20,000 on the basis of promissory note was dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for recovery of 9,20,000 on the basis of promissory note and receipt dated 20-10-1994. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent by filing written statement. 3. The pleadings of the parties reduced into the following issues including the relief by the learned trial Court. (1) Whether the pro note and receipt dated 20-10-1994 is forged and fictitious document? OPD (2) Whether the pro note and receipt dated 20-10-1994 was executed by the defendant himself and defendant had received Rs.9,20,000 from plaintiff as debt? OPP (3) Relief 4. The parties produced their respective evidence. The plaintiff-appellant appeared as P.W. whereas he produced Faiz Muhammad P.W.2 and Allah Ditta P.W.3. Both the P.Ws. were marginal witnesses of the receipt Exh. P2. He produced in documentary evidence pro note Exh.P1, receipt Exh.P2, enlargement…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492