P L D 1950 Baluchistan 20 (PLP)

ORDER.

This revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,850 brought by the late Malik Abdul Ghani, respondent No. 1, against the petitioner Nizam-ud-Din and the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3-Muhammad Yamin and Abdul Rahman. The parties were partners in a contract and it is admitted by the defendants that the plaintiff withdrew from the partnership a few weeks after the parties had entered into it and that the amount claimed by him was due to him as balance of the amount invested by him in the partnership business. The petitioner's contention in the revision petition filed before me is, as it was before the Lower Courts, that as the defendants were partners they are equally liable for payment of the plaintiff's dues. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 maintain that on being allowed a credit for this amount in the partnership accounts the petitioner had undertaken to pay this amount to the plaintiff and had accordingly executed a pro-note in latter's favour. The Senior Sub-Judge, in Baluchistan in an elaborate judgment has found that the liability for payment of the balance of Rs. 1,850 due to the plaintiff was that of the petitioner alone and he absolved respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from all liability and decreed the suit against the petitioner Nizam-ud-Din alone. The petitioner has already appealed unsuccessfully to the District Judge in Baluchistan and as the two Courts agree on questions of fact, namely, that the petitioner alone is liable to pay the sum of Rs. 1,850 claimed by the plaintiff, this Court would not normally interfere in a case where the Lower Courts give reached a concurrent finding unless it has reason to believe that the finding is not based on a fair appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, I proposed to examine this case in the light of the aforesaid principle. I have seen the records and have heard the parties, counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced fresh arguments before me as ground for revision, despite the fact that the revision petition clearly indicated that this Court was only moved to exercise its powers to amend the decree' and award a decree equitably as between the defendant-petitioner and defendants- respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Counsel now relies on subsection 1 of section 69 of the Partnership Act maintaining that as the partnership between the parties was not registered, the suit out of which this revision arises was not therefore maintainable and as the Court in the first instance entertained the suit it has assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in it by law. This argument was not raised before the Senior Sub-Judge, in Baluchistan or before the Lower Appellate Court and in the ordinary course of events I would ignore the arguments on this point. I find however, that there is no substance in the view taken by the learned counsel in view of the provisions of sub section 3, (a) of the same section of the Partnership Act. Learned counsel has also-stated before me, that he no' longer makes claim against the other two defendants and that the application for revision is directed against the legal representatives of the late plaintiff Malik Abdul Ghani. alone. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the powers of this Court to intervene in a civil suit in which the two Lower Courts have come to concurrent findings of fact are attracted. Moreover, from the records I am satisfied that neither of the two Lower Courts has exercised either illegal or improper jurisdiction. I decline to, exercise the revisional jurisdiction vested in me under section 115, Civil Procedure Code and the petition is accordingly rejected. A. H. Petition rejected.