1994 PLP 819 (MLD)

Civil revision by the plaintiff was against the judgments and decrees of lower Courts by which his claim for recovery of Rs.12,000 instituted against the respondent was dismissed. Petitioner was a Zamindar. He employed the respondent as his domestic servant. Respondent was in his service for four months. Thereafter, he left him and took up service with another person. Petitioner filed a civil suit against him for recovery of Rs.12,000 which he had taken from him in course of hit employment and not returned. Respondent resisted the suit and denied his liability. The trial Court raised appropriate issues arising from the pleadings of the parties for decision. These were re-produced in the impugned judgments of the lower Courts and need not be repeated. Both parties gave oral evidence in support of their respective versions. Petitioner relied upon agreement Exh.P.1 which gave the terms. of employment of the respondent with- him. Upon review of evidence, the trial Court found against the petitioner and dismissed his suit. On appeal, the finding was maintained. Both the Courts below found oral evidence unconvincing and unreliable. As for Exh.P.1, it was not proved. Except for Zahid Ashfaq, other marginal witnesses of Exh.P.1 were not produced in evidence by the petitioner for proving its execution. There was no satisfactory and acceptable reason shown for this omission. Petitioner deposed that Exh.P.1 was written by him. It did not bear his signature or thumb-impression. Respondent denied its execution by him. Onus to prove voluntary execution of Exh.P.1 by respondent lay upon the petitioner. He failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily. Therefore, 'on the type of oral evidence led in the case, the petitioner was rightly non-suited in the lower Courts. Towards the end of the trial, petitioner submitted an application to the trial Court for comparison of the respondent's thumb-impression with the disputed thumb-impression appearing on Exh.P.1. In reply to the application, respondent submitted that he was kept in wrongful confinement by the petitioner for getting his thumb-impression on a blank paper. Petitioner sought to make such capital out of it to urge that respondent had admitted his thumb impression on Exh.P.1. I do not think, it was a correct reading of the reply submitted by respondent. Order of the trial Court made on the application for comparison of thumb-impression was not placed on file of this Court. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and its natural probabilities, the decision of the lower Courts could not be termed infirm. On appreciation of entire record, they gave this judgment. The record was neither misread nor ignored. Therefore, agreed finding on a question of fact was not susceptible for being upset in revisional jurisdiction. In consequence, civil revision fails in limine and is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./M-1353/L Revision dismissed