P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

QADEERUDDIN, J.

This is a revision application pre ferred from the judgment and decree of Captain Iftikhar Hussain, Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi. The grounds of the application for revision are that the judgment is perverse, that there is gross and palpable error in it and that it has been made without considering the whole evidence before the Court. The present applicant Muhammad Islam had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 345 against opponents Nos. 1 and

2. Both of them were served but opponent No. 1 remained absent. Opponent No. 2 filed a written statement and admitted para. 1 of the plaint. It is stated in para. 1 of the plaint that defendant No. 1 (who is opponent No. 1 here) had taken on hire one cycle thela and one patromax lamp at the rate of Rs. 10 per month each. It is also stated in the para. that the cycle thela was valued at Rs. 100 and the Patromax lamp was valued at Rs.

75. None of these facts were denied by defendant No. 2 (who is opponent No. 2 in the present application)-Mr. Zahurul Haq the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the learned trial Judge has imported his personal knowledge as well as introduced facts in the judgment which are not in evidence. The learned trial Judge has said in his order : "until recently the plaintiff was a money lender. He has chanted his method of business because I found that his licence had not been renewed". There is nothing on record to support this statement of fact. The facts may be correct but they have been introduced into the judgment from the personal knowledge of the learned trial judge and the plaintiff Muhammad Islam who is the applicant now is justified in complaining that the learned trial Judge should not have relied on these facts for deciding the case. Mr. Zahurul Haq has relied on Darga Prasad Singh v. Rare Dayal Chaudhri (I L R 38 Cal. 153). He has also pointed out a discrepancy between para. No. 3 of the Written Statement of opponent No. 2 and his statement before the Court. According to para. No. 3 of the written statement opponent No. 1 had returned the cycle tWa and the patromax to the applicant but according to the statement made in Court they were returned by opponent No.

2. After the admissions made by opponent No. 2 the burden of proof was shifted' from the applicant to the opponents who ought to have discharged this burden with proper evidence, and they have apparently failed to do so. The mind of the learned trial judge was influenced by his personal knowledge regarding the career and the profession of the applicant. I have considered the advisibility of remanding the case but it appears that in view of the admissions made in the written statement no purpose will be served by remanding it. I therefore accept the revision application, set aside the judgment and decree, and decree the suit. No body has appeared for the opponents. In view of all the facts of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. Z.A.S./A.H. Appeal accepted.