1987 PLP 106 (CLC)

"(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? O.P.D. (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable? O.P.D. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the articles of dowry or in the alternative a sum of Rs . 20, 000? 0 . P . P . (4) Relief."

2. In the course of evidence, the respondent, in addition to relying on a list of the articles of her dowry, also mentioned the details of some of them and produced another three witnesses in support of her case. On his part, petitioner, while appearing as D.W.4, as also his brother Muhammad Aslam as D.W.1, admitted some other articles as having been brought by her as her dowry. After considering the evidence of the parties, learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that as regards the particular articles of her dowry there was no corroboration but held her entitled to a decree for Rs.20,000 as the value thereof, and decreed her suit accordingly on 29‑9‑1984.

3. Petitioner filed an appeal there against. In ground No.5 of the memo thereof, finding of the trial Court with regard to the giving of dowry to the respondent was contested but in the very next paragraph reference was made to the evidence of the witnesses on the record to the effect that few clothes and jewellery had been given to her and it was further pointed out that they had not been cross‑examined about those facts whereby their evidence deserved to be regarded as having been admitted. In the memo of appeal, even though the objection was taken that the value of the articles had not been proved, yet, the petitioner neither specified the articles admitted by him nor alleged even that their price could be less than Rs.20,

000. A learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, found that it was established that the articles of dowry had in fact been given to the respondent at the time of her marriage, which fact was not denied by the appellant and finding that those articles could neither have been handed over to her at the time of her departure nor could she have been allowed to remove them from his house, he affirmed the trial Court's decree with regard to Rs.20,000 by dismissing the petitioners appeal on 7‑11‑1985. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Contention of the learned counsel is that even though there is no evidence on the record with regard to the particulars of the articles of dowry of the respondent, yet the proper course for the Courts below was to have passed a decree for the return of those articles which could be held to have been brought by her to the house of the petitioner but a decree for payment of Rs.20,000 to her was not justified because there is no evidence led to the effect that their value could be so much. This argument has not impressed me for the reason that the litigation has remained pending below for over four years but neither in the suit nor in his appeal, did the petitioner at any stage either enter contest with regard to the valuation put by the respondent on her dowry articles or state the value of the articles ultimately admitted by him. Since, on the record a definite finding could not be reached about the particular articles of her dowry, even admitted by the petitioner, therefore, it could not be possible to separately assess the value of such articles and since the petitioner had not entered contest with regard to the value of any of the articles of her dowry, therefore, the Courts below have not committed any error in accepting her claim to decree her suit for the value of Rs.20,

000. Petitioner cannot be allowed to urge an unpleaded case at this stage and his contention is accordingly repelled.

5. No other point has been argued.

6. Result of the foregoing is that there does not emerge any case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed in limine. A . A . Revision dismissed.