1990 PLP 677 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions are for facts and reasons stated therein, connected together, therefore, they are being disposed of by this single order. The petitions arc directed against; the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's two Civil Revisions which had arisen out of two suits ‑ one filed by the respondents side and the other by the petitioner. The petitioner's version is given in the memorandum of Civil Petition No. 289 of 1989 in somewhat detail. The relevant paragraph, whereof reads as follows :‑ "That the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,200 as the petitioner had paid Rs.20,000 to Respondent No.1 for an arrangement that Respondent will send two sons of the petitioner to the foreign countries. Similarly, Rs.1,200 were paid to Respondent No.2 as commission because he has also taken the responsibility that if Respondent No.1 failed to do so then the amount will be returned to the petitioner herein. "That the Respondent No.1 Filed written statement. He came up with a different story without any documentary proof that he had not received Rs.20,000 to send two sons of the petitioner abroad but he entered into an oral agreement to purchase a plot measuring 10 marlas at the rate of 85.2,000 per marla. He paid Rs.10,U1)0 through a cheque on 10‑7‑79 and Rs.3,000 through another cheque after a month as an advance for the sale of plot. Respondent No.2 also Filed written statement. Seven issues were framed by the trial Court." The version of the respondent side in brief can be found in the memorandum of Civil Petition No.288 of 1989 and it reads as follows :‑ That the facts of the case are that Respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.13,0(N) against the petitioner. In the plaint it was alleged that the petitioner made an oral agreement with the respondent to sell his land measuring 10 marlas at the rate of Rs.2,000 per marla. It was also alleged that out of amount of Rs.20,000 the respondent had paid Rs.13,000 to the petitioner through cheques and the remaining amount of I2s.7.000 was to be paid before the Registrar al the time of registration of sale‑deed. When the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of sale agreement, the respondent filed suit for the recovery of Rs.13,000 paid by him. The petitioner refuted all the allegations in his written statement. On the pleadings of the parties as .many as five issues were framed by the trial Court." The petitioner has failed in both the suits throughout. After hearing the learned counsel we have gained the impression that the learned Courts below have non‑suited the petitioner, by and large, on account of certain technical considerations. The petitioner's plea which has, prima facie, a ring of truth and finds corroboration from the circumstances appearing in the material before the Courts, has not been given due importance. It appears it is a case of non‑reading and misreading of evidence. We have granted leave to appeal in another case (Civil Petition No.268 of 1986) which had arisen out of similar circumstances though, the modus operandi on the respondents side therein is different. These are also cases of first impression and might need authoritative pronouncement with regard to practice of defrauding innocent persons on the lure of getting jobs abroad for them or for their near ones. Mostly people from poor strata of the society have suffered in the entire exercise. [See also Rehmat Ullah's case (1983 SCMR 11164), its facts part]. Accordingly leave to appeal is granted in both these petitions. Security Rs.2,000 in each case. The effect of the decree impugned in Civil Petition No.268 of 1986 is suspended during the pendency of the matter in this Court. These appeals shall be heard with appeal arising out of the aforementioned case‑‑C.P.268 of 1986 wherein leave to appeal has been granted today. All these appeals shall be heard together. The appeals shall be prepared on present record with direction to parties to file all essential documents. M.A.K./A‑560/S Leave granted