2005 PLP 1228 (MLD)

Through this civil revision the petitioners have called in question the legality of judgment and decree dated 12-6-2003 passed by learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi Shangla, camp Court at Swat, whereby the appeal arising from judgment and decree dated 10-4-2002, passed by learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Swat has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of instant civil revision are that Ziaullah plaintiff instituted Suit No.370/1 on 26-6-2000 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi Swat against Sub-Divisional Officer (C&W Building Sub-Division) Saidu Shaif, Swat and other defendants, claiming recovery of Rs.4,86,939 with 25% interest. According to the plaintiff, he was awarded contract for the repairs regarding residential/non-residential Government buildings in Building Sub-Division Saidu Sharif, Swat. He completed the repair work, measurement was made and it was duly reflected in the measurement book. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the amount in suit is outstanding against the department. He approached the department time and again but in vain which constrained him to file suit.

3. The claim of the plaintiff was repudiated and all the dues were stated to have been paid to him. The pleas of the parties gave rise to the framing of following issues: urdu 1230

4. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material available on record, learned Civil Judge, allowed suit for recovery of Rs.4,86,939 by-virtue of his judgment and decree dated 10-4-2002, which was maintained in appeal by learned District Judge, Swat vide judgment dated 2-6-2003.

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan, Deputy Advocate-General contended with force that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence and the impugned judgment of learned District Judge was recorded in a mechanical manner without application of mind in total disregard to the requirements of Order 41 rule 31, C.P.C. inasmuch as neither issue-wise findings were given by the Appellate Court nor points for determination were set out and decision given thereon. The learned counsel maintained that when issues had been framed, the Appellate Court was bound to record its findings on each and every issue raised unless the findings on one of the issues obviated the necessity of given findings on the remaining issues. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Saifullah Khan and others v. Muhammad Azam and others (2004 CLC 8 Peshawar) and Mst. Wajida Begum and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others (2004 CLC 231 Peshawar).

6. Mr. Rashid Ali Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contended that the impugned judgments are unexceptionable and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

7. On a careful assessment of the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are based on correct and fair appraisal of evidence and the grounds urged stand conclusively determined by the judgments of the Courts below. A perusal of the B record would reveal that the statement of the respondent was not controverted expressly by learned Deputy Attorney-General. Mere allegation in the absence of any documentary proof is not a valid piece of evidence and cannot be considered for brushing aside genuine and bona fide claim of the respondent. It is not denied that material facts deposed in examination-in-chief by a witness, if remained unchallenged in cross-examination, shall be deemed to have been admitted.

8. It is well-settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the First Appellate Court, then this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below C while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless and until judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior Courts.

9. Reverting to the other objection raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding non-compliance of the requirements of Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C., no doubt, it is true that the characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory, in other words, it must contain reasons that justify conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find them convincing at least reasonable. In the instant case all the legal formalities have been duly complied with and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. The learned Appellate Court has given elaborate findings on each and every point. The judgment of the Appellate Court has been recorded keeping in view the provisions contained in Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C. The repair work having been completed in terms of the contract, petitioner department had no valid reason to withhold payment and oblige the contractor/respondent to approach the Court of law to ventilate his grievance.

10. The rulings cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable and have no bearing on the facts of the present case. The above discussions leads me to irresistible conclusion that the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence as well as the law applicable to the case. Neither any non-reading or misreading of E evidence nor any material irregularity nor any jurisdictional defect could be pointed out to justify interference. The civil revision, having been found bereft of substance, is dismissed with no order as to cots. H.B.T./416/P Revision dismissed.