1986 PLP 1341 (MLD)

‑‑‑S. 96‑‑Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S.10‑‑Recovery of amount‑ Amount claimed in suit having admittedly been received by defendant, repayment of such amount to claimant /plaintiff, held, could not be withheld by defendant due to certain unreasonable behaviour of third party. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 96‑‑First appeal, maintainability of‑‑Appellant having failed to advance "any argument in support of appeal to show that finding of Trial Court on issues framed in suit was not sustainable on basis of material on record, appeal, held, was liable to be dismissed being without merits in circumstances. K.A. Wahab for Appellant. Sanaullah Qamar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th April, 1986. This appeal under section 96, C.P.C. is preferred by the defendant‑appellant against the Judgment and decree passed by the lst Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad on 14‑5‑1978 in Suit No. 298/76 decreeing the suit of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of Rs. 25,500 with future interest at the rate of 9$ per annum from the date of the suit till the amount is paid. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the evidence recorded in the case. The suit was instituted by the respondent for recovery of sum of 25,500 on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 20,000, was invested by the respondent at the pursuation of the appellant to form a partnership business. It was alleged that subsequently the appellant declined to constitute the firm but agreed to return the amount of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff which was deposited by the respondent with the appellant. It' was further alleged that subsequently the appellant issued a post dated cheque in the sum of Rs. 20,000 dated 25‑12‑1973 for repayment of the above account of Rs. 20,000 which was dishonoured. That after the dishonour of the abovementioned cheque the matter was again settled and appellant issued another cheque, dated 1‑11‑1973 to repay the above amount but it was again dishonoured. The respondent then served a notice on the appellant for repayment of the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum as damages but he failed to pay the amount whereafter the suit was instituted. From the pleading as well as evidence in the case it is quite clear that receipt of the amount claimed in the suit was not denied by the appellant. He resisted repayment of the same on the ground that one Abdul Rehman who ha also agreed to become a partner alongwith the plaintiff‑respondent wit the appellant, after the agreement to form the partnership firm ha fallen through, had enticed away the entire technical staff of the appellant factory with the result the factory of the appellant went out of production. It was further alleged that the amount advanced to th staff at the time of their employment with the appellant also could no be adjusted because of the aforesaid action of Abdul Rehman and it was 'further alleged that according to the practice prevalent among the members of Glass Bangles Manufactures Association the plaintiff was liable to repay the defendant which he paid to the staff as advance and which amounted to Rs. 25,

000. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the defence of the appellant in the suit as the receipt of the amount was not disputed by him but he only claimed that he was no liable to refund the same as under some alleged practice the respondent was liable to refund the alleged advances made by the appellant to hi workers who were enticed away by Abdul Rehman. This defence was hardly sufficient to resist the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to advance any argument in support of the appeal to show that the findings given by the trial Court on the issue framed in the suit are not sustainable on the basis of the material on record. Ther is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed.