Messrs Frontier Ceramics Limited plaintiff/respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs,4,94,734/51 against the petitioner/defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Peshawar. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit in the favour of respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13-12-2003. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge Peshawar, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-2004. Being not contented with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below the petitioner has filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khalil, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the receipts as well as documents produced by the respondent/plaintiff did not bear the stamp of the Company, hence were not admissible in evidence and no reliance could be placed upon the same.
3. It was also argued that there was no policy of 'the respondent/plaintiff Company to give goods- on credit, therefore, nothing was given on credit to the petitioner/defendant.
4. It was further argued that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence need interference.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the available record.
6. The argument of the learned counsel that the receipt and other documents did not bear the stamp of the Company, hence were not admissible in evidence has no force. Javed Iqbal Sales Manager of Messrs Frontier Ceramics was examined as P.W.1. He placed on record statement showing outstanding amount as Exh.P.W.1/1, letter dated 15-11-1990 Exh.P.W.1/2, notice served upon the petitioner Exh. P. W . 1/3, postal receipt Exhs . P.W . 1/4 , A . D . Card Exh.P.W .1/5 and receipt through which the petitioner/defendant paid Rs,15,000 on 3-1-1992 Exh.P.W.1/6. All these documents were placed on record without any objection from the petitioner/defendant side. It is by now settled law that if a document is once admitted in evidence, objection against its admission is not allowed at appellate stage what to speak of raising such objection at revisional stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on Malik Din and another v. Muhammad Aslam PLD 1969 SC 136, Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others PLD 1968 SC 140, Muhammad Akram v. Syed Imrao Ali Shah 1988 CLC 2228, Abdul Hamid v. Muhammad Zamir and 2 others 1990 MLD 1617 and National Bank of Pakistan v. Said Mir 1987 CLC 1103.
7. Another aspect of the case is that not a single question was asked by the petitioner/defendant in cross-examination with regard to said documents. It is also settled proposition of law that if a witness is not cross-examined on facts and his statement goes unrebutted and unquestioned such statement can be taken as correct. Reliance. In this respect is placed on Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Mana and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700; Mst. Noor Jehan Begum v. Syed Mujtaba Naqvi 1990 SCMR 2300; Aminul Haq v. Abdul Wasi 2004 CLC 555 and Haji Din Muhammad through L.Rs, v.Mst.
Hajira Bibi PLD 2002 Pesh.21.
8. Yet another aspect which needs to be mentioned here is that the questions which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at Bar were not taken in written statement and it is by now settled law that a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence about the plea which was not taken in the pleading and statement to that extent C is to be ignored. Wisdom in this regard has been gained from Din Muhammad and others v. Sarder Muhammad .Zaman 2001 SCMR 1992 and Binyamin and 3 others v. Chaudhry Hakam and another 1996 SCMR 336.
9. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record and I have not been able to find out any misreading/non-reading of evidence or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interference in the concurrent findings of the Court of competent jurisdiction. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.