' SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.-The plaintiff-respondent Muhammad Ibrahim Khan is a Government contractor. In the year 1986 the defendants-petitioners had awarded him a contract, for construction of road in the limits of D.I. Khan District and to this effect an agreement was duly executed between the parties. The respondent executed the contract work and the payment was made to him as per contract/agreement. However, during audit of the accounts of the C&W Department/ defendants, in the year 1990, the audit party raised an objection that road roller charges were not recovered from the contractor as per prescribed formula and on the basis of that objection defendant No,5 i.e, Executive Engineer C&W D.I. Khan issued Letter No,2235 dated 24-9- 1991 to the plaintiff-respondent directing him to make payment of road roller charges according to the new formula of rates pointed out by the audit party.
2. The plaintiff-respondent Muhammad Ibrahim challenged the validity of Letter No,2235 dated 24- 9-1991 of Executive Engineer C&W Department D.I. Khan by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was decreed in his favour by the learned Civil Judge-Ill, D.I. Khan vide judgment dated 28-10-2004. The petitioners; appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28- 10-2004 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-V D.I. Khan vide judgment dated 3- 7-2006 and consequently they have filed the instant revision petition.
3. In the revision petition it is admitted that Letter No, 2235 dated 24-9-1991 was issued to the plaintiff- respondent in view of the audit objection based on new rates. However, during the trial the defendants-petitioners had not produced any evidence to the effect that the new rates were in vogue at the time of execution of the contract agreement between the parties or that the new rates were given retrospective effect. Even otherwise on the basis of audit objection no recovery could be made from the plaintiff- respondent, because the audit objection is a matter to be settled between the Audit Officers and the C&W Department and the plaintiff-respondent has no concern with it. The learned trial Court had, therefore, rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. The concurrent findings of the Court below are not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in revision. The revision petition being without substance is hereby dismissed in limine and consequently C.M. No, 198 of 2006, also stands dismissed.
Revision .