' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner-plaintiff impugns the appellate judgment and decree, dated 1-3-2006, whereby an appeal filed by the respondents was partially allowed and as a result, the decree, which had been passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the petitioner as prayed for in the plaint, was modified.
2. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff was that he had been purchasing agricultural inputs such as pesticides and fertilizer from respondent No. 1 from time to time. According to the averments in the plaint, the petitioner claimed to have paid the entire amountdue to the said respondents and had also become entitled to a refund of Rs,60,000, which had become due to him because of excess payment. In their written statement, the respondents have given figures, which are based on erroneous calculations but, in the main, the contention of the petitioner as to payments made by him, have not been disputed.
3. The respondents, however, have asserted that the brother of the petitioner, namely, Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo was a debtor of the respondents to the extent of Rs,60,764 and the amount of Rs,60,213, claimed by the petitioner, had been adjusted towards the payment due from his brother with his concurrence.
4. The learned Trial Court framed issues on which the parties led evidence. After considering the same, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioner, which decree has been modified, as noted above. Hence this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Court has disclosed no basis for varying the decree of the learned Trial Court. In particular, it has been pointed out that the evidence produced by the respondents did not, in any manner, rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner.
6. The above submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff remain uncontroverted because of the absence of the respondents despite service. Further, having gone through the appellate judgment, I find no basis, given by the Court, for modifying the decree of the learned Trial Court. In the circumstances, I find the impugned appellate decree to be unexceptionable. The same is set aside. As a consequence, the decree of the learned Trial Court, dated 7-7-2005 in favour of the petitioner stands restored.