' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Muhammad Sharif respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of accounts and for recovery of Rs,14,500 against Muhammad Afzalpetitioner/defendant. It was his case that the petitioner/defendant was responsible for organizing a committee in which the respondent/plaintiff had participated. According to the respondent, the petitioner had failed to pay the amount of Rs,14,500 to him although this sum was due from the petitioner as a result of his participation in the committee.
2. The petitioner denied the allegation in the plaint and asserted that, in fact, the respondent owed him a sum of Rs,10,000. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court on which the parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the respondent's suit vide judgment and decree, dated 9-9- 2005. The learned appellate Court, however, has reversed the learned trial Court and, as a result, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on 21-1-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, firstly, argued that thelearned appellate Court has relied on a document (Exh.P-1) which purports to be a card relating to a committee. This document, according to learned counsel, was tendered by counsel for the respondent in his concluding statement, whereby the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was closed. It is argued that the document has not been proved. It is further contended that when the petitioner appeared as D. W.1, he expressly stated that Exh. P-1 was a forged document, which did not bear his signatures and had been fabricated by the respondent.
4. Additionally, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the contents of the plaint wherein it has been alleged that a punchait was convened for resolving the controversy between the parties.
However, the respondent as P.W.1 and his witness Ahmad Ali (P.W.2) have not made reference to any punchait nor has any member of the alleged punchait been produced to prove the case setup by the respondent/plaintiff.
5. Thirdly,.It has been pointed out that Ahmad Ali (P.W.2) was himself an interested witness as he had also filed a suit of a similar natureagainst the petitioner in which the respondent/plaintiff had appeared as a witness in support of the said Ahmad Ali.
6. The above submissions have merit and have remained uncontroverted in the absence of the respondent-plaintiff. Having gone through the appellate judgment, I note that the circumstances, mentioned above, have not been duly considered and nor has the learned appellate Court met the reasoning, which prevailed with the learned trial Court for dismissing the suit of the respondent- plaintiff. In the circumstances, I find the impugned appellate decree to be a result of misreading and non-reading of the record. The same is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence, the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 9-9-2005 stands restored.