1988 PLP 1852 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑Liability of appellant to pay disputed amount was not only established by agreement executed by him in favour of respondent firm for hiring goods, but was also proved by a copy of letter produced by appellant himself in Court‑ Appellate Court below held, had rightly placed liability of paying disputed amount on shout of appellant. Ch. Abdul Hamid for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1987. This second appeal arose out of a suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,430/10 Annas on the basis of hire charges for the goods lent. The suit was resisted mainly by the appellant‑defendant. The learned trial Court framed the necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The suit was after full trial, dismissed by the learned trial Court. 0n appear the matter was remanded and again the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24‑7‑1962 dismissed the suit. The appeal of the respondent‑plaintiff, however, succeeded and a decree for Rs.1,430/10 Annas was granted vide judgment and decree dated 29‑4‑1966. Thereafter, the present second appeal was filed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the available record. The suit was instituted by the respondent firm against Ch. Sher Muhammad appellant and Sh. Noor Ahmad respondent No.2 for recovery of Rs.1,430/10 Annas on account of hire charges of furniture, crockery and tents etc. supplied on an order placed by the appellant. The total amount of hire‑charges was Rs.2,580/10 Annas out of which Rs.1,150 were paid and hence the remaining amount was claimed in the suit. Ch. Sher Muhammad appellant alone resisted the suit denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that he had not placed any order with the plaintiff firm for supply of goods. He averred that the goods of the plaintiff firm were hired by the office‑bearers of District Muslim League Sheikhupura. The learned trial Court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiff firm had not been able to prove any order having been placed by the appellant. The learned Appellate Court reversed this finding observing that the document Ex.P2 an agreement executed by the appellant‑defendant in favour of the plaintiff firm for hiring the goods escaped the notice of the learned trial Court and that this document alone was sufficient to establish the contract as well as liability of defendant No.l. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a letter dated 1‑8‑1952 Ex. PI. A copy of the same was produced from the brief for my perusal as the same was not available in the record forwarded to this Court. Nothing contained in the letter shows that the appellant was not personally liable for the amount of hire charges. It was rightly observed by the learned Appellate Court that in this letter the appellant had complained that the rent for one day was being charged in excess. He also mentioned that the meeting was being held next day and that the amount will be settled very, soon. From this it cannot be inferred that the appellant was denying his personal liability or that the payment was to be made by the office bearers of Muslim League. The contract Ex.P2 having been signed by the appellant the liability was thus rightly placed on his shoulder. In view of the above no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and .decree. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. As none has entered appearance to contest the appeal there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.