' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- This revision petition, under section 115, C.P.C., is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-12-1997 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, decreeing the respondent's recovery suit against the petitioner, was dismissed with costs.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent despite having been served upon through citation in the newspaper, has not turned up. He is proceeded ex parte.
3. The relevant facts are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs,61935.60 against the petitioner/defendant, alleging that respondent/plaintiff is a firm carrying on business of contractor, engineers and builders, the petitioner/defendant invited quotations for the labour work in connection with the construction of his two storeyed house in Danepur Lane, the respondent/plaintiff's offer was accepted the work was taken in hand by the petitioner/defendant.
During the course of construction the petitioner/defendant started making changes in the work, which materially changed the scope and quantum of the work involved, the respondent/plaintiff therefore through letter dated 13-10-1984 informed the petitioner/defendant and claimed additional rate of Rs,6 per sq.Ft., the petitioner/defendant agreed to pay the differential costs incurred by the respondent/plaintiff on work. The respondent/ plaintiff worked out the details and submitted his bill for Rs,19,710 the petitioner/defendant vide letter dated 14-5-1985 asked the respondent/ plaintiff to carry out extra work on second storey of floor concreting under the cover of roof treatment of ground floor, which was not covered by the agreement, the respondent/plaintiff therefore claimed extra rate of Rs,2 sq. Ft. For the same, the petitioner/defendant, who was till then satisfied with the work got annoyed and in retaliation made false allegations through letter dated 16-5-1985 and forced the respondent/ plaintiff to leave the work by 30-5-1985, thereby not allowing the respondent/plaintiff to lay the floor of 800 sq.Ft. On the ground floor and the work of laying chips over 1200 sq.Ft. On the ground floor. The respondent/plaintiff gave the details of the work done and the charges thereof, in para-6 of the plaint, which came to Rs,1,85,015.60. He further alleged that the cost of the two jobs not allowed to be completed came to Rs,6,080 and after deducting the same, amount payable by the petitioner/defendant was worked out to be Rs,178935.60 out of which petitioner/defendant in all paid Rs,117000 leaving balance of Rs,61,935.60 which was still due, hence the suit.
4. The petitioner/defendant resisted the suit through a written statement. Preliminary objections were raised to the effect that the suit was false, frivolous and has not been filed by duly authorized agent. On facts, it was stated inter alia that the work was not carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and specifications as also to the entire satisfaction of the petitioner/defendant. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
(a) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form in view of the preliminary objections Nos.1 and 2 of the written statement? OPD.
(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs,61,935.60 with profit at 14%? OPP.
(c) Relief.
5. Both the parties produced their evidence.
6. P. W.1 Muhammad Iqbal is the General Manager of the respondent/plaintiff. He supported the respondent/plaintiff's case, which has already been detailed above. He also produced copy of letter dated 20-3-1984, containing the construction rate of labour as per discussion with the petitioner/defendant as Exh.P.1, letter dated 22-3-1984 of the acceptance of offer as Exh.P.2, letter dated 13-10-1984 as Exh.P.3 containing the demand of additional rate of Rs,6 per sq.Ft, letter dated 18-10-1984 containing the demand of additional cost as Exh.P.R., letter dated 14-5-1985 written by the petitioner/defendant asking the respondent/plaintiff to do extra work detailed in the letter as Exh.P.5, letter, dated 15-5-1985 demanding extra rate of Rs,2 per sq.Ft., for the extra work as Exh.P.6, legal notice dated 13-6-1985 as Exh.P.7 and legal notice dated 23-7-1985 as Exh.P.8.
7. The petitioner/defendant on the other hand appeared as his own witness as D.W.1. He did not examine any one else as his witness. The agreement executed between the parties is available on the file. It is mentioned by the learned trial Court that the same has been produced by the petitioner/defendant. It has not been exhibited, the agreement is admitted between the parties, the petitioner admitted the carrying out of the extra work, denied Exh.P.4 and admitted his letter Exh.P.5.
8. The learned trial Court, after having gone through the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. At the appeal stage, the respondent, as here, failed to appear, he was therefore proceeded ex parte. The learned Appellate Court, as mentioned above, vide its judgment and decree dated 20-10-1998 dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement was entered into between the respondent's firm and not between the respondent and the petitioner. The judgments of the Courts below are vague, the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove the extent of damages and the Courts below have illegally treated the statement of the respondent/plaintiff as gospel truth.
10. The petitioner did not raise any objection in the written statement that there was no agreement arrived at between the parties. In fact the execution of the agreement between the parties has throughout been admitted. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, therefore, has no merit. In the written statement there is no denial of the details of the work undertaken as given in the plaint. The respondent's offer was admittedly accepted by the petitioner and the work was accordingly undertaken by the respondent. There is nothing on the record showing that the work was not done in accordance with the specifications and terms and conditions of the agreement. No defect was ever found or pointed out in the work completed/undertaken by the respondent. Admittedly the respondent undertook extra work as per desire of the petitioner for which extra rate was claimed in writing. Extra work of floor concreting on the second storey, under the cover of roof treatment of ground floor was not covered by the agreement, for which extra rate of Rs,2 per sq.Ft., was demanded and charged and at this juncture for no reason the petitioner got annoyed and forced the respondent to leave the work. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from illegality, misreading or non reading of evidence and no material irregularity has been pointed out. The respondent has fully proved his case through his oral assertion as well as through documentary evidence, which has established that the petitioner has not paid the disputed amount to the respondent. Nothing came out in the cross-examination of the respondent and the contents of the plaint were denied by the petitioner in the written statement evasively. In my opinion the petitioner has failed to made out any case for interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
11. In view of the above mentioned, I see no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed with costs, as awarded by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court.