2002 PLP 701 (SCMR)

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 27‑8‑2001, passed in Writ Petition No.281 of 2001.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for return of dowery articles or in the alternate recovery of Rs.2,65,

521. The suit was contested by the petitioners, and the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment dated 19‑5‑2000. The petitioners approached the First Appellate Court by way of appeal, which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, vide judgment dated 10‑10‑2000, holding the respondent entitled to recover Rs.70,000 as price of the dowery. Both the parties approached the learned High Court by way of Writ Petitions bearing Nos.281 of 2001 and 682 of 2001. The learned Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent and dismissed that of the petitioners herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment of the learned Judge of the High Court is not sustainable and the findings of the Additional District Judge awarding an amount of Rs.70,000 in favour of the respondent should not have been reversed.

4. We have gone through the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the material available. The respondent in the suit furnished evidence, which was not rebutted by the petitioners in cross‑examination. The judgment and decree of the trial Court in favour of the respondent is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and law, whereas the Additional District Judge without considering the evidence of the parties and applying his independent judicial mind partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree from Rs.2,65,521 to Rs.70,000, which is not borne out from the record. The High Court after considering the entire available material with sound and cogent reasons allowed the writ petition of the respondent, and the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment runs as under:

"

5. Corning to the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, I find that the respondent No. l appeared as D.W.1 while his father Abdullah as D.W.2. None of the two respondents have questioned the correctness of the contents of the list annexed with the plaint and referred to by the petitioner in her statement as P.W.3, apart from this she has given the complete details of the said articles in her statement, which has not been challenged in the course of cross‑examination. Of course the suggestion was given to her that the said articles were brought back to her house, which she denied. Even the learned Additional District Judge has not found anything wrong with the said list or details given by the lady in her statement. What the learned Additional District Judge has done is that he has proceeded to add up the price of some of the said articles with reference to the receipts and thereafter relying upon the statement of the respondent No. l that the articles were worth Rs.70,000 proceeded to modify the decree of the trial Court. Now the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is a contradiction in terms. In the absence of any rebuttal or evidence that the goods mentioned in the list by the petitioner were not given to her by way of dowery, the learned Additional District Judge has refused to allow return of the other articles which in the light of evidence on record stood admittedly given to the petitioner by way of dowery. This is a case of gross misreading of record rather failure on the part of the learned Additional District Judge to read evidence on record. 1, therefore, do find that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Attock is without lawful authority."

5. We do not find misreading or non‑reading of evidence. There is no misconstruction of law. The learned High Court in its writ jurisdiction rightly exercised its powers, wherein the order of the Additional District Judge was contrary to the evidence recorded by the parties and his findings g were perverse. which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The impugned judgment is not open to exception. Furthermore, the point of public importance, as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not involved in this case.

6. Resultantly the petition sans merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed alongwith the listed application, and leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A./M‑337/S Petition dismissed.