' Through the filing of the present appeal, Assistant Director Fisheries and another, the appellants/defendants, have called in question judgment and decree dated 14-1-1996, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed their appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 24-5-1995, passed by the learned Civil Judge, through which he decreed suit for recovery of Rs.1,19,995 favouring the respondent.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal arc that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,19,995, against the appellants, pleading therein that he participated in auction proceedings'of fishing rights for the year, 1993-94 of the area known as "Qadirabad Beraj", that he was declared successful bidder, that he deposited the full bid amount along with advance income tax against the receipts issues by the department and that Director General Fisheries, at the first instance, disapproved the said bid and a letter dated 22-9-1993 was issued, thereby fixing the date for re- auctioning of the said fishing rights. It is the case of the respondent that he filed an application to the department for the refund of the amount, which was followed by the legal notice, however, the appellants informed the respondent vide letter dated 16-10-1993 that his bid has been accepted after its disapproval and that his demand for refund of bid amount cannot be accepted. Refusal to pay the said amount, prima facie compelled the respondent to file the suit for recovery. The said suit was resisted by the appellant, inter alia, submitting that after the issuance of letter dated 16- 10-1993, the respondent contacted the . Appellant and executed the contract deed by putting his signature on the relevant places of contract in the presence of the witnesses. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-- ' "Issues:---
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,19,995 from the defendants on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(3) Whether suit is mala fide? OPD.
(4) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file the present suit? OPD.
(5) Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.
(6) Whether Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the suit? OPD.
(7) Relief."
The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, proceeded to decree the suit, in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 24-5-1995. Appellant's appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 14-1-1996, hence the present second appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgments suffer from legal errors, inasmuch as both the Courts have misread and non-read the evidence on record. He has further submitted that the respondent executed the contract in the presence of the witnesses, therefore, cannot unilaterally wriggle out from his commitments and thus is not entitled for the recovery of bid amount. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgments and submitted that the concurrent findings of facts are not to be interfered by this Court in second appeal.
4. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have examined the impugned judgments and the available record and find that both the Courts, specially, the learned Additional District Judge, have exhaustively, embarked upon the issues, involved in the case, appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in its true perspective and have reached to the proper conclusions, which to my mind are not open to exception. I have perused the evidence, produced by the parties, in juxtaposition with the findings given by both the Courts below and is of the view that the inferences drawn by both the Courts below are in accordance with the evidence on record.
The findings rendered by both the Courts are not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject. I have no reasons to upset the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by both the Courts below and the findings rendered by them are hereby confirmed.
' It is pertinent to mention that on the application (C.M. No.2-C of 1996), filed by the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 8-10-2003, allowed them to place on record the report/opinion of the Director General Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Police, Lahore in additional evidence. I have examined the said report, but the same too does not advance the case of the appellants.
5. It is settled law that the second appeal leis on the grounds mentioned in section 100 of C.P.C. And not on questions of fact.. The learned counsel has not been able to show that how the second appeal B falls within any of the grounds mentioned in section 100 of C.P.C. No error of law has been committed by both the Courts below, while rendering the concurrent findings of facts.
6. I have examined the impugned judgments rendered by both the Courts below, which are legal, un-exceptionable, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and do not call for any interference by this Court at the stage of second appeal. It is settled law that the concurrent findings of facts are not liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, conferred on it under section 100, C:P.C. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Sharif and another v.
Sher Ali 1970 SCM R 510, Hafiz Muhammad Hussain and another v. Abbas Khan and another 1981 SCM R 1233, Fazal Rehman v. Amir Haider and another 1986 SCM R 1814, Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Akhtar 1988 SCM R 801, Sughran Bibi v. Mst. Aziz &gum and 4 others 1996 SCM R 137, Abdul Rashid v.
Bashiran and another 1996 SCM R 808, Haji Sultan Ahmad through legal heirs v. Naeem Raza and 6 others 1996 SCM R 1729, Mussarat Sultana v. Muhammad Saeed 1997 SCM R 1866, Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617 and Muhammad Amir v. Khan Bahadur and another PLD 1996 SC 267.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.