1988 PLP 1140 (CLC)

This revision application under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, is directed against the judgment decree dated 13‑4‑1980, passed by learned Judge Small Causes Court, Karachi, in Civil suit No.566/79. I have heard the learned counsels of the parties and also perused R & P of the trial Court. The facts leading to these proceedings are that under instruction from respondent, the plaintiff carried out work of repairs, polishing, painting of the furnitures of the respondent who was acting Chief Internal Auditor in M/s Oil and Gas Development Corporation. The respondent failed to pay' the bill in respect of said work amounting to Rs.1600 and therefore, the applicant filed the suit which was dismissed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi, vide the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Judge Small Causes Court has not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the applicant in his support but has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on two grounds. Firstly, that as the respondent was entitled from the Corporation a free furnished accommodation which included the maintenance and repairs of his furniture, therefore, he could not have got the furniture repaired by the applicant. Secondly, that the respondent was a person of responsibility and he was not expected to deny the petty claim of the plaintiff. Admittedly the applicant used to work as a contractor of the Oil and Gas Corporation, where the respondent was working as Chief Internal Auditor. The applicant states in deposition before the trial Court, that under the instructions of the respondent he got the furniture etc. of respondent polished through labourers Altaf and Babu. He has produced the bill of the repair's work as Ex.8 and also the carbon copy of bill from his bill book as Ex.

9. The total charges shown in the bill are Rs.1820 but after a special discount of Rs. 220 the net bill is for Rs.1600. This bill is dated 29‑1‑1979 The applicant had also produced the copy of the registered notice given by his advocate to the respondent as Ex; 10 and also acknowledgement receipt Ex.ll. The notice is dated 11‑8‑1979. The respondent in his deposition in Court has admitted the receipt of this notice and states that he did not reply to the notice. He has produced some documents as Ex.12/1 and 12/4, which show that some furniture was issued to respondent No.l in his house by the Corporation for use. The applicant had also examined his two witnesses namely, Abdul Salam alias Babu and Muhammad Akram who fully support him. They state that they carried out work of polishing and repairing of the furniture in the house of respondent for appellant. The statement of P . W. Muhammad Akram in this respect has gone un challenged. The mere fact that the respondent was entitled to get his furniture repaired through the Corporation would not debar him from getting it repaired privately. It appears that he placed the order of repairs with the applicant, who was a regular contractor of the Corporation either expecting that the applicant would do the work gratis or that he would obtain approval of the repairs from the concerned authority. Be that as it may it does not deprive the applicant from seeking payment from respondent for the repairs done under instruction of the respondent, in absence of any work order from the Corporation. It is not possible that the applicant would issue false bill and would even give notice in writing for the payment of bill. The conduct of the ‑respondent in not replying to the notice which he admittedly received from the applicant, is not only un‑natural but also amounts to implied admission of the case of the applicant. The learned Judge has not taken the documents produced by the applicant in his support into consideration nor he has given any valid reasons for dis‑believing the applicant and his witnesses. The mere fact that the party is highly placed would not give him any privilege over the other party. The respondent has admitted that there is no provision in his appointment order for providing him with furnished accommodation. He however, states, that this facility is available to the officers and that the repairs are being done by the Corporation. Apart from his word, there is no other evidence in support of his contention. The only witness examined by him D.W. Abdul Razak also does not support him in this respect. In my opinion the applicant has been able to prove his case and the learned trial Judge has misread and misappreciated the evidence while dismissing the suit of the applicant vide the impugned judgment. The powers of this Court under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, are quite wide and are not limited by conditions as contained in section 115 C . P . C . Reference may be made to AIR 1939 Allahabad Page 590, and P L D 1957 Karachi page,

832. I accordingly allowed this revision application, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Karachi, and decreed the suit of the applicant with cost by a short order dated 30‑9‑1986. Above are reasons in support of the said order. H . B . T . /M‑354/ K ‑‑‑‑‑ Revision petition allowed.