MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs ABDUL SATTAR

' The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 24,500 before District Judge, Sahiwal. It was based upon a pronote, dated 8th of July, 1985. The defendant refused the execution of pronote whereupon issues were framed and the parties were allowed to produce their evidence. By way of a judgment and decree, dated 9-6-1987, the original Court/Additional District Judge, Sahiwal dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Earlier on Issue No,1, it was found that the plaintiff had failed to produce two attesting witnesses to support the pronote and that production of only one attesting witness did not sufficiently answer the requirement of Article 17(2) read with Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. 10 of 1984). It was also recorded that the defendant having disputed his signature, the plaintiff could make a request for an Expert opinion to challenge his pleas that the pronote in question was not a genuine document.

2. Parties have been heard.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon 1986 SCMR 308 re: Dil Murad and others v. Akbar Shah to contend that the evidence produced on record was sufficient to establish the execution of pronote. Also claims that pronote was not required by law to be attested by two witnesses and therefore their production before the Court was not necessary.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, places reliance upon PLD 1996 Lahore 367 re: Abdul Khaliq v. Muhammad Asghar Khan and 2 others. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court held that a document/instrument pertaining to financial or future obligations could not be used in evidence unless at least two attested witnesses were examined for such purpose, if they were alive and were subject to the process of Court.

5. The nature of the document namely a pronote is admittedly similar in nature which was called in question in the aforesaid Division Bench order. The learned counsel for the petitioner, is not correct in saying that a pronote was not required to be attested by two witnesses. At any rate, after the enforcement of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, all instruments pertaining to financial or future obligations are required to be attested by at least two witnesses. The aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court re: Abdul Khaliq (supra) directly treats the issues in hand while the judgment of the Supreme Court re: Dil Murad (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rendered in the perspective of section 68 of the Evidence Act (I of 1872). Both Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order being specific for the kind of document in question, the view of the Division Bench of this Court fully covers the controversy.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has also attempted to refer the evidence/statements of P.Ws. To bring home the contradiction in them. However, since the view of the original Court finds approval from the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Re: Abdul Khaliq (supra), no useful purpose will be served by discussing the evidence produced by the parties.

7. Therefore, this appeal must fail. It shall accordingly be dismissed.