' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J. This civil revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 8-11-2004, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 4-3-2003 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,24,000 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had received Rs, 15,000 in cash plus clothes and gold ornaments valuing Rs,9,000 from the respondent on the pretext of getting the petitioner married. Such marriage apparently could not happen whereupon the petitioner allegedly refused to return the cash and gold ornaments. In the above circumstances the respondent got a criminal case registered against the petitioner under sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. Whereafter, it is alleged, an agreement was entered into between the parties and a document in this behalf was executed on 13-11-2000, whereby, it is alleged, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs, 10,000 to the respondent by or before 13-1-2001 and upon failure to pay the said amount, the entire amount of Rs,24,000 would become payable. The petitioner failed to pay the said amount. Whereupon the suit for recovery was filed. The petitioner entered appearance and contested the suit by, inter alia, taking the plea that the document dated 13-11-2000 was forged and fabricated and based upon fraud. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and evidence was led by both the parties. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 4-3-2003 decreed the suit against the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which also failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 8-11 -2004.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition has been perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the so-called agreement dated 13-11-2000 is held to have been proved in evidence, the same was still not enforceable as it was void being against the public policy as it was not only intended for the purpose of stifling criminal proceedings but also procuring a marriage. It is also contended that it is in evidence that the cash and the articles in question were handed over to the father of intended bride.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
6. There is a concurrent finding of facts, not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar that the cash, clothes and the gold ornaments changed hands and were never returned to the respondent. There is also a concurrent finding of facts to the effect that the document in question has been proved and the petitioner has been unable to prove any fraud in its execution. It has also been noticed that no objection to the effect that the said document was void has been taken in the written statement, in the appeal or even in the revision petition before this Court. Even otherwise if an agreement is void, by virtue of section 65 of the Contract Act, all the benefits obtained thereunder are liable to be refunded.
' In this view of the matter no exception can be taken to the impugned judgments and decrees.
Hence, this revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.