2002 PLP 1341 (MLD)

This single judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1766 of 2000 and Civil Revision No.535 of 2001 as the both have been directed against the same impugned judgment/decree. Civil Revision No. 1766 of 2000

2. Rabnawaz filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Notice No.205, dated 8‑1‑1998 for the recovery of Rs.98,500 was against law, facts, terms and conditions of the agreement and the same was not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed a decree for recovery of Rs.1,08,

500. It is also asserted in the plaint that respondent No.1 invited bids whereby the petitioner was declared successful bidder of lease for the year 1995‑96 for the sale of judicial forms in the Court premises in consideration of Rs.1,96,

500. The petitioner deposited Rs.10,000 in advance and he was required to deposit the balance amount in four equal installments as per condition of the auction. After obtaining the abovesaid lease, the petitioner started his business but some other people without any lawful authority also started to sell judicial forms alongwith stamp‑papers, court‑fee tickets, etc., during the lease period of the petitioner, therefore, he moved an application to the respondents that because of sale of forms by other persons he was going under loss. On application an inquiry was held and allegation of the petitioner was found correct. For the loss suffered by the petitioner due to sale of the forms by other unauthorized persons, he claimed an amount of Rs.1,08,500 from the respondents as compensation. He also challenged the damand notice for deposit of Rs.98,500.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents arid the learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the petitioner to the extent of demand notice issued by the respondents but dismissed the suit to the extent of recovery of Rs.1,08,500 vide judgment/decree dated 22‑9‑1999. Feeling aggrieved by above said judgment/decree, the respondents filed appeal which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab with a modification that he was held responsible for payment of 3rd installment amounting to Rs.48,

500. It was further held that the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled for adjustment of the earnest amount of Rs. 10,

000. Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment/decree, the present revision has been filed. Civil Revision No.535 of 2000

4. This Civil Revision has been directed against the impugned judgments/decrees dated 22‑9‑1999 and 13‑5‑2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Khushab respectively. The petitioners in this civil revision have mainly challenged the modification made by the learned Additional District Judge in the judgment/decree of the learned trial Court to the extent that they should only recover amount to the extent of, Rs. 40,500 instead of Rs.98,500.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The admitted position on record is that the petitioner obtained lease for the sale of judicial forms in the Court premises in consideration of Rs.1,98,

500. He deposited Rs.10,000 as earnest money and the remaining amount was required to be deposited in four equal installments. The petitioner paid only two installments. The second installment was deposited on 17‑3‑1996 which is sufficient to prove that till then the petitioner was selling the judicial forms as per contract. The complaint filed by him again was initiated against the persons found responsible in this regard. The plaint of the petitioner is completely silent on the point that as to when the plaintiff abandoned the contract and stopped selling of judicial forms Even today the petitioner has frankly admitted that he is still selling judicial forms in the Court premises. There is also no evidence on the record to substantiate the allegation of the petitioner about the loss actually suffered by him. Learned Appellate Court has extended leniency in favour of the petitioner observing that he is entitled for adjustment of the earnest amount of Rs.‑10.000 and the modification made by the Court while deciding Issue No.6 whereby the notice dated 8‑1‑1998 was partly set aside to the extent of partial damand of last quarter amounting to Rs.48,

500. Therefore the finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from no illegality or infirmity. Both the civil revisions have no merits and the same are dismissed. H.B.T./R‑122/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.