Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Application No.16 of 1984, decided on 7th February,1984.

---S.115--Revision--Concurrent findings of fact, held, could not be disturbed and set aside in revisional jurisdiction.

---O.VIII, r.1--Written statement--Witness--Written statement not a substantive evidence--Held, could not be relied upon unless supported by version of defendant in box who offered himself for cross-examina tion.--[Witness].

Farooq H . Naek for Petitioner.

Date of Hearing: 7th February, 1984.

This is a revision application against the judgment of the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi passed in appeal against a decree for money in the sum of Rs.8,830 passed by the learned XXth Civil Judge, Karachi.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a Manager of the plaintiff. According to the plaint a sum of Rs.11,230 remained outstanding and payable from the defendant to the plaintiff and on failure of the appellant to clear this liability the respondent had to file a suit being Suit No.6179 in the Court of the learned XVIth Civil Judge IInd Class at Karachi. The appellant filed a written statement. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned XVI Civil Judge, Karachi decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.8,830. Against this decree the appellant filed a civil appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No.226 of 1981. This appeal was dismissed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi on 15th October, 1983 and the decree passed by the trial Court was upheld. Now this revision is filed before me against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the two judgments suffer from infirmity on the ground that the findings are based on a document Exh.5 which is only a photostat copy and not the original. As such he says the decree cannot be passed on the basis of this document.

I have perused the two judgments passed by the two courts below and have noted that not only this document is the basis of the findings of the two courts but the statement on oath by the plaintiff/ respondent is the main criterion which has pursuaded the court to pass a decree in his favour. It may be stated that the appellant had filed a written statement but did not turn up in the witness-box to support the contentions in this written statement. Newly-appointed Manager who, as rightly observed by the learned trial Court was subsequently engaged and had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case appeared in the box to support the case of the appellant. The learned counsel further questions the amounts which have been decreed. I am afraid it is a question of-fact. The witnesses were examined before the trial Court and the trial Court was in a position to see their demeanour. In revisional jurisdiction I. cannot interfere to disturb and set aside the concurrent findings of facts. The plain reading of the judgment of the learned VIth Additional District Judge leaves an impression that no evidence worth any notice was produced on behalf of the appellant. He did not even enter the box to support the version in the written statement. It is well known that written statement is not a substantive evidence and cannot be relied upon unless supported by the version of the defendant in the box who offers himself for cross-examination. The following observations of the learned Additional District Judge are noteworthy:-

" ..So far Exh.P.2 is concerned it is a photostat copy of bill but on the letter-head of the appellant's firm. Moreover no objection regarding its admission was raised before the trial Court. The defendant Shahzada Ahmad Shah who has filed and verified the written statement did not care to come in the witness- box to refute the claim of the respondent. The learned Civil Judge, has therefore, rightly disbelieved the version of Muhammad Yousuf who has no personal knowledge of the dispute between the parties. He appeared in the Court to give evidence on the basis of a letter of authority which is on a plain and simple paper and cannot be called a power-of-attorney. However, the burden of proving the claim was on the respondent who has discharge the same by producing sufficient evidence which has gone unrebutted. If the appellant would have been serious enough to contest the suit, he would have appeared in the witness-box with document to show that the claim of the respondent was false. The assertion of "the respondent has gone unchallenged."

These are reasoned findings of facts and nothing has been shown to me to justify an interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

The revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The judgments and decrees of the two lower courts are upheld.

M . A . K Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.