2010 PLP 841 (CLC)

ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.

This Civil Revision is directed against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below i.e. suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-5-2004 and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22-11-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat.

2. In support of this civil revision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is in violation to Order XLI rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code; that the learned appellate Court did not discuss the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff; that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge are not issue-wise, so, the said judgment is no judgment in the eye of law; that the fraud alleged by the petitioner was denied by the respondents, so, the burden to prove the same was on the shoulders of the respondents; that there is non-reading and mis-readings of evidence by both the learned Courts below which have led to miscarriage of justice and that both the judgments of Courts below are liable to be set aside. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel has relied upon PLD 2007 SC-AJK 20, 2006 SCMR 1594, 2004 SCMR 1, 2007 MLD 1732, 2007 YLR 2220, 2004 CLC 950 and 2009 CLC 219.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court has discussed every aspect of the case in detail; that the learned Additional District Judge while dealing with the case in the appellate jurisdiction has also considered the moot points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant; that as the fraud was alleged by the plaintiff, therefore, the burden was on his shoulders to prove the same and not the respondents and that judgments of both the learned Courts below are concurrent in nature and that this civil revision is liable to be dismissed in the above circumstances of the case.

4. Heard. I have gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as also of the learned Additional District Judge with the able assistance of learned counsel for both the parties. Not only the learned trial Court but the learned appellate Court has also attended to all the important aspects of the case and discussed the evidence available on record. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the fraud alleged by the plaintiff/petitioner was denied by the respondents so the burden to prove the same was on the shoulders of the respondents, has no force because it is the settled law that the onus to prove a fact rests on the shoulders of the person who raises the same and not on the opposite party. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable and is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, so, 'the same is of no avail to him. In the afore-referred circumstances, I find no illegality to warrant interference with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below which are concurrent in nature and keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court of the country in Alamgir Khan through LRs and others v. Haji Abdul Sattar Khan and others 2009 SCMR 54 and Muhammad Suleman v. Shaukal Ali 2009 SCMR 678 cannot be interfered with so lightly, hence, this revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-552/L Petition dismissed.