2003 PLP 1660 (MLD)

Nadeem Mehmood Mian for Petitioner. Zahid Ali Chaudhry for Respondent No.

1. Petitioner Ghulam Rasool has assailed the judgment of respondent No.2, learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby, he had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of respondent No.3, learned Judge Family Court, Tandlianwala, dated 26-11-2001. Respondent No.3 had decreed the suit of respondent No.1, Mst. Farzana Kausar for recovery of dowry articles in the amount of Rs.60,000 only as against her claim of Rs.1,21,541.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the list which has been appended with the plaint was not prepared at the time of 'Rukhsati' rather it was prepared by, the learned counsel, who- filed the suit and that the hand writing of the plaint and list of the dowry articles is same. Learned counsel has further argued that the dowry articles, if any which were given to respondent No.1, were returned by the petitioner through 'Punchayat' in the presence of some police official, namely Nazir Najmi and even the list of the dowry articles; which was returned by the petitioner, had been prepared at the time of handing over the, articles and one Rai Hanif Kharal was present at that time, who had arranged the return of articles through ' Punchayat' that the petitioner had stated before respondent No.3 that respondent No.1 was his first cousin; that he himself had provided money for preparing the dowry article since father of respondent No. 1 was a cobbler (Mochi) and he did not have means to prepare any dowry for respondent No.1; that respondent No. 1 had admitted in her cross-examination. that there was no electric meter in her house and they received electric supply from some neighbour's house; that she has two brothers only, who are aged 18 and 20 years respectively; that family of respondent No. 1 does not own any immovable property, therefore, they had no source of income to prepare such a large dowry and that both the Courts below had not appraised the evidence properly while decreeing the suit of, respondent No. 1 to the extent of Rs.60,000.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has vehemently supported both the judgments of Courts below- and has stated that there is concurrent findings of fact and the petitioner had admitted that dowry articles were received at the time of marriage but no evidence was forthcoming regarding return of the same through ' Punchayat' therefore, there is no illegality in the, judgments- of both the Courts below.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the impugned judgment of respondent No.2. It has been observed therein that both the respondent No. 1, Mst. Farzana Kausai and her witness Muhammad Mansha, who appeared as P.W.2, had given full detail of the disputed articles of the dowry and P.W.2 was independent witness being neighbour of respondent No.

1. He had also given description of the dowry articles and receipts had been produced by respondent No.1 regarding many of the dowry articles, whereas, the petitioner had not produced any evidence for return of the dowry articles, and even had not summoned Rai Hanif Kharal as his witness to prove that dowry articles were returned. There is contention of petitioner's counsel that dowry articles were brought to house of the petitioner on four carts (Raries); therefore, their value could not be possibly of the amount decreed.

5. There is preponderance of evidence in favour of respondent No.1 having received dowry articles that she had claimed. On the other hand, petitioner had not been able to prove that he had returned the same through ' Punchayat', which in itself is admission that dowry articles were received by him, therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgments of both the Courts below, who had decreed the dowry only to the extent of fifty per cent of the amount claimed. It is not impossible that dowry articles as claimed by respondent No.1 could have been transported to the house of petitioner on carts (Raries) since both the parties live in Tandlianwala, where carts or commonly plied for transportation of the goods. No case is made out for interference in concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below. This petition is accordingly

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner be allowed to deposit Rs.60,000 in instalments. The petitioner has already deposited Rs.10,000 with D.R. (Judicial) of this Court, which may be withdrawn by respondent No.1 on completion of legal, formalities. The balance amount of Rs.50,000 may be deposited by the petitioner with .respondent No.3, learned Executing Court in five equal instalments of Rs:10,

000. First instalment of Rs.10,000 be deposited on 15th of November, 2002 and the balance amount be deposited after every quarter on 15th of the month in which it is due. If any instalment is not deposited in time, the entire balance shall be payable at once. S. M. A. H./G-220/L Petition dismissed.