ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Ist Civil Appeal No.S-02 of 2023.

[Arsalan Ali v. Zaheer Hussain]

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orders on CMA No.155/2023.

2. For orders on office objection (Flag ‘A’).

3. For orders on CMA No.156/2023.

4. For orders on CMA No.157/2023.

5. For hearing of main case.

09.03.2023.

M/s Asif Mushtaque Mahoto and Tahir Hussain Abro, Advocates for the Appellant.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-

Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry J.- Urgency granted. This is an appeal from judgment and decree passed by the IV-Additional District Judge, Larkana in Summary Suit No.01/2021, filed by the Respondent against the Appellant.

            The suit was filed by the Respondent to recover Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve Lacs only) along with markup on the basis of a cheque dated 10.08.2020 given by the Appellant to the Respondent which was dishonoured upon presentation on 09.09.2020 for insufficient funds. Apparently, the Appellant was allowed leave to defend and the suit was decreed after recording evidence. Therefore, the point for determination is whether the trial court has correctly appraised the evidence.

It was an undisputed fact that the parties were related to each other. It was the case of the Respondent that the parties had been in business together and the cheque was given towards settlement of accounts. The Respondent had produced the cheque, the dishonor note, and had examined the Manager Operations of the Bank who verified the said instruments. On the other hand, the defense of the Appellant was that his signature on the cheque was forged by the Respondent after he had stolen the Appellant’s cheque book from his shop. But then, the cheque had not been dishonoured for variation in signatures, rather for insufficient funds. Nonetheless, the only evidence lead by the Appellant to prove his allegation was a letter written by him to the Manager of the Bank branch, and a complaint allegedly made to the F.I.A. But both were apparently made much after the cheque had been dishonoured. There was no complaint or FIR to the concerned police station made at the relevant time. The defense set-up by the Appellant appeared to be an after-thought and did not inspire any confidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 

Judge

Qazi TahirPA/*