1994SCMR1966 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Art. 30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Decision of suit on basis of document on record coupled with admission of defendant ‑‑‑ All the Courts below had decided against defendant‑‑‑Defendant raising question of fact which stood concluded by the concurrent judgments of Courts below‑‑‑No point of law had been raised by defendant which required consideration by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXXI, R. 31‑‑‑No relief in terms of money as an alternative was claimed by plaintiff in her suit nor any amount had been fixed in the decree to be paid as an alternative to the delivery of movable property‑‑‑Executing Court had power inter alia under OXXI, R. 31, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which could be exercised in any of such eventualities to grant alternative relief. Petitioner No. 1 in person. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1992. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑ ‑‑The petitioner No. 2 was married to the respondent on 3‑2‑1984. Due to strained relations between the couple, the marriage was dissolved through a decree of the Court on 3‑10‑1988. On 19‑5‑1987, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for return of dowry articles and bridal gifts mentioned in the list Exh. P.

2. The suit was decreed in favour of respondent and against the petitioners. Their appeal and revision having been dismissed by the appellate and the revisional Courts, the petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31‑10‑1992. We have heard the petitioner No. 1 in person. He submitted that the Courts below have erred in relying upon the document Exh. P. 2 which was not signed by the petitioner. The petitioner has raised the question of fact. All the Courts have concurrently held that the articles belonging to the respondent have been retained by the petitioner. The Courts have also noticed the admission of the petitioner 'made, in application Exh. P. 3 that he would return the articles. No point of law has been raised by the petitioner which needs examination by this Court. We see no merit in this petition. Before concluding, we noticed that although no relief in term of money as an alternative is claimed by the respondent, in the suit nor an amount has been fixed in the decree, to be paid as an alternative to the delivery of movable property but the executing Court has such power inter alia, under Order XXI, rule 31, C.P.C. which can be exercised in any of the eventualities mentioned in the aforesaid order. The petition is dismissed with the above observation. S‑833/S Petition dismissed.