2007 PLP 83 (MLD)

AHMED KHAN LASHARI, J.

By this Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. judgment/decree, dated 2-12-2002 passed by learned Majils-e-Shoora Kalat at Mastung has been challenged whereby suit by the respondent for recovery of Rs.60,000 was decreed to the extent of Rs.15,000.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to file this petition are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.60,000 against his cousin i.e. the petitioner in the Court of Qazi Sarawan at Mastung, on the ground that he after adopting the minor child of petitioner namely Parveen spent an amount of Rs.60,000 on her education etc. The petitioner vide agreement executed on 3rd June, 1977 bound himself for return of the maintenance charges of the child. The petitioner in his written statement denied the claim and averted that no such agreement was executed between the parties. The learned Qazi Sarawan after framing of issues directed the parties to produce their respective evidence in support of their claim. The parties after adducing their evidence recorded their statements on oath. The learned Qazi after hearing the parties vide judgment, dated 30-9-2002 dismissed the suit against which Appeal bearing No.66 of 2002 was filed in the Court of learned Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat at Mastung which was decided on 2-12-2002 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.15,000 to the respondent against maintenance charges of the child.

3. I have heard Mr. Sundar Dass Advocate learned counsel for respondent, learned counsel for petitioner Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf despite repeated calls remained absent. The respondent in the year, 1977 adopted the minor daughter of petitioner namely Parveen aged about 1-1/2 year as he was issueless. When the child attained the age of 8/9 years came to her father's house, the respondent tried his best for return of the child but of no avail as such he filed a suit for recovery of money based on agreement, dated 3rd June, 1977. The document indicates the respondent took the responsibility of maintenance of the child till her marriage, when she went to her parents' house and did not return the respondent being aggrieved of that filed suit for recovery of money. The agreement does not contain any clause showing the petitioner bound down himself for return of the amount, though the appellate Court after having gone through the document and evidence declared the relief as illegal and unlawful but contrary to the findings decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.15,000 without specifying reasons for reversing the decree of trial Court. The learned counsel for respondent failed to point out how the decree was sustainable in view of the findings arrived at by the Court below. The learned appellate Court in mis exercise of jurisdiction decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.15,000 as such the petition is accepted and impugned judgment is set aside. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. H.B.T./35/Q Petition accepted.