2019 PLP 1715 (YLR)

ALI BAIG, J.

This Civil First Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment/decree dated 27.11.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class No.III Gilgit, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent in his favour.

1. Facts in brief are that the present plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.3,37,000/- against the present appellant/defendant in the trial court claiming that the plaintiff/ respondent had got a shop owned by the present appellant/defendant on rent situated at Colonel Hassan Market, Gilgit. After getting the said shop on rent, the plaintiff/respondent decorated and installed marble etc. by investing an amount of Rs.3,37,000/-. Later on the disputed shop was got vacated by the appellant/defendant and was given to the Bank Al-Habib on rent and the appellant/defendant agreed to pay invested amounts amounting to Rs.3,37,000/- to the plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly, the appellant/ defendant issued Cheque bearing No.3999932 amounting to Rs.3,37,000/- of Allied Bank Danyore Branch which on presentation before the concerned bank returned the same being in sufficient balance/amount in the account of the appellant/defendant.

2. Upon service of the notice of the present case, the appellant/ defendant appeared before the learned trial court and contested the suit by filing his written statement denying averments/allegations levelled against him in the plaint of the instant suit.

3. On the pleading of the parties, the following consent issues were settled by the learned trial court:- 6(sic). The plaintiff/respondent in support of his case examined himself before the trial court and produced one Mehmood Khan as P.W-1 and Bulbul Jan as P.W-2. The plaintiff/respondent has also produced a copy of bounced Cheque as documentary evidence in the trial court.

7. On the other hand the defendant got recorded his statement in the trial court on 06-10-2015, but he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in the trial court in support of his claim.

8. On conclusion, of trial the learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of the parties has decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff/ respondent vide impugned judgment/ decree under appeal, hence this civil first appeal.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/defendant earlier had filed civil first appeal in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, which was returned by the learned Ist Appellate Court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction vide order dated 17-3-2017, and thereafter this appeal has been filed in this court by the appellant/defendant.

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant contended that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class No.III Gilgit, is contrary to law and facts On the record of the case, assuch the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant further argued that the plaintiff/ respondent has failed to prove his stance taken in the plaint/case through reliable evidence and the learned trial court has wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent in his favour. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further argued the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court is a result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence of the parties.

11. Conversely, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and supported the impugned judgment/decree by contending that since the plaintiff/ respondent has proved his case/claim by adducing tangible oral and documentary evidence in the trial court, therefore, the leaned trial court has rightly and legally decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent in his favour. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent further argued that the appellant/defendant has miserably failed to produce any reliable evidence to rebut the claim of the plaintiff/ respondent.

12. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, minutely perused the material/evidence available on record.

13. From perusal of record it transpires that the appellant/respondent has admitted in his examination in chief as well as in cross-examination recorded before the learned trial Court that he had handed over cheque amounting to Rs.3,37,000/- to the plaintiff/respondent.

14. Moreover, the plaintiff/respondent has also proved his claim by adducing two reliable oral evidence and documentary evidence i.e. cheque bearing No. 39999932 amounting to Rs. 337000/- Exh-P/1. On the other hand, the defendant has miserably failed to rebut the claim of the present respondent/ plaintiff, as the defendant/appellant has not adduced single oral or documentary evidence in the learned trial court.

15. Furthermore, this appeal is hopelessly time barred and even the appellant has not bothered to file an application section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay in filing appeal in this court as the impugned judgment/decree was passed by the learned trial court on 27.11.2015 and certified true copy of the impugned judgment was delivered to the appellant on 13.5.2016 and appeal against the impugned judgment/decree of trial court was filed in this court on 18.04.2017.

16. In view of herein above facts and discussion we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly evaluated/ appraised the evidence adduced by the parties and has rightly has decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent/ plaintiff. The impugned judgment/decree of the learned trial court does not call for any interference by this court and the civil 1st appeal in hand being devoid of merit as well as force is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. File. SA/219/GB Appeal dismissed.