1991 PLP 1124 (CLC)

(2) A sum of Rs.4,750 was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants at the time of taking delivery of the taxi. (3) The balance of the sale consideration viz. Rs.20,250 was to be paid in eighteen monthly instalments, 17 instalments being of Rs.1,000 each and the last instalment of Rs.3,250. (4) Till such time as full price of the taxi was paid the registration of the taxi was to remain in the name of defendant No.1, who was also responsible for paying taxation department dues. (5) After receiving full price of the taxi as agreed, the defendant No.1 was to give the plaintiff a letter of transfer to enable the plaintiff to get the registration of the taxi changed in his name. Under the above arrangement, the, price of the taxi was settled at Rs.25,000 out of which Rs.4,150 was to be paid by the first respondent, the balance , sale consideration amounting to Rs.20,250 was to be paid in 18th monthly instalments, 17 instalments being Rs.1,000 each and the last instalment of Rs.3,

250. Further, it was also agreed by the parties that the registration of the taxi was to remain in the name of the Petitioner till payment of full price of taxi and after receiving full price, the Petitioner was to give the first respondent a letter of transfer for getting registration of the taxi changed in his name. The first respondent paid Rs.4,750 as initial payment at the time of delivery of the taxi and thereafter he paid instalments of Rs.1,000 each. The first instalment was paid in May, 1967 and the last in January, 1968, thus thereby the Petitioner had received Rs.13,750 from the first respondent. The first respondent also got a radio fitted in the taxi at a cost of Rs.1,

000. The said taxi was seized by the staff of the C.I.A.A. Office, Saddar, Karachi on 20‑1‑1968 and on inquiry the first respondent came to know that the petitioner had lodged a report with the police against the second respondent under Sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. alleging that 18 taxis including Taxi No.KAX‑1041, sold to the first respondent, had been given to the second respondent on contract basis but the latter had fraudulently sold the taxis on the basis of the respondent. The second respondent was arrested and the taxi seized by the police, was handed over to the Petitioner. The case of the first respondent was that the report lodged by the Petitioner with the police is false as the taxi was never in the hand of second respondent as a contractor, but had been sold by the petitioner to various persons on instalment basis through the second respondent. The petitioner in collusion with the second respondent and defendant No.3 have committed breach of the contract and are therefore liable to repay to the first respondent the sum of Rs.14,

750. The Petitioner refused to pay the said amount, hence he first respondent filed the above suit. Tile second respondent though served, remained absent. The Petitioner and third respondent filed separate written statements. The Petitioner contended that he was not carrying on the business of selling taxis on instalment basis, but he was carrying on tile business of running taxis on contract basis. The Petitioner denied that tile second respondent was his agent. The Petitioner pleaded that the Second respondent was entrusted with Taxi No.KAX‑1041 alongwith other 15 taxis oil contract basis and it was agreed by the second respondent that he will pay Rs.800 per month per taxi to the Petitioner. The second respondent became dishonest and he made defaults in payment of instalments and later on the Petitioner came to know that the second respondent dishonestly misappropriated, transferred and sold the said taxi alongwith other taxis to different parties. Tile Petitioner also pleaded that the taxi in dispute belonged to defendant No. 3 who had entrusted the same to Petitioner for running the same on contract basis. The Petitioner denied that he ever sold the taxi to the first respondent‑and further the first respondent was not entitled to recover any amount from the Petitioner. The defendant No.3 also denied all the allegations. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed seven issues and replied issues 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative. On issue No.4 the' learned Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that Taxi No.KAX‑1041 was not owned by defendant No.3. Consequently he held that the taxi does not belong to the defendant No.3, but he was necessary party for the determination of the rea issues in question. The learned Civil Judge decided issues Nos.5 and 6 together The learned Judge held that the second respondent acted as agent of the Petitioner. He found that the Petitioner and second respondent committed breach of sale of taxi and they were liable to return the amount of Rs.14,

750. In that view of the matter, he decreed the suit of the, first respondent against the Petitioner and second respondent. The Additional District Judge, on re‑assessment of the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the respondent purchased Taxi No.KAK‑1041 from the Petitioner through second respondent. He held that the second respondent acted as agent of the petitioner. He found that the petitioner and second respondent committed breach of contract of sale of taxi in question and they got back the custody of taxi through the police by filing criminal case. In that view of the matter, he held that the Petitioner and second respondent were liable to refund Rs.14,750 to the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were affirmed. Hence the present revision. I have heard Mr. Ilyas Khan, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the original defendant No.1 and Mr. S. Mushtaq Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The second respondent remained absent. Mr. Ilyas raised the same contentions which were raised before the learned Additional District Judge. Mr. llyas contended that the first appellate Court misread the evidence. I have not been able to appreciate this contention in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the present case, the first respondent's case was that the Petitioner through second respondent, sold the taxi in question to him. The first respondent asserted that the Petitioner was introduced by the second respondent, who used to sell taxis on instalment basis through the second respondent. As per terms and conditions orally settled between him and the petitioner, the first respondent was required to pay the instalments to the second respondent. He paid 8 instalments and the account of payment was‑ maintained by the second respondent. The second respondent though riled written statement, remained absent. He was declared ex parte. The second respondent supported the case of the petitioner in his counter‑affidavit in an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, C.P.C. The second respondent stated in his counter‑affidavit that 16 taxis were sold by the Petitioner through him to different persons on instalment basis. The statement of account was produced as Ext.7/J in criminal case. The learned Senior Civil Judge perused tile certified copy of the entries of register Ext.

13. On perusal he found that taxi in question was sold to Petitioner who paid the amount of Rs.13,750 in instalments. This register was produced by the Petitioner himself. This finding was affirmed by the Additional District Judge. I have gone through the evidence of the parties. The evidence produced by the parties would show that the petitioner sold the taxi in question to respondent through respondent No.2 on instalment basis. It has come on record that the respondent paid Rs.,13,750 in instalments in terms of oral arrangement. In the circumstances, therefore, objections of Mr. Ilyas Khan failed to make out a case of misreading or non‑reading of evidence and I am convinced that the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts is in consonance with the record and there is hardly valid reason calling for interference with the same particularly when no objection as to the jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgments by two Courts below has been taken. As a result of what has been stated above, this revision petition is dismissed and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. The above are the reasons of the short order dated 23‑8‑1990 dismissing the revision on conclusion of the arguments. H.B.T./S‑719/K Petition dismissed.