' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide RFA No,183/05 and RFA No,401/05 as these proceed against the same judgment of the learned trial Court.
2. On 30-4-2003 the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellants (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants) for recovery of Rs,3,02,000 under Order XXXVII C.P.C. According to the plaint, the plaintiff had business relations with the defendants.
He used to provide metal scrap to them and the defendants would make payments through cheques. They owed a sum of Rs,3,57,642. A sum of Rs,1,09,642 was paid back whereas four cheques detailed in Para 2 of the plaint totaling Rs,2,48,000 were issued. The cheques were presented for payment but were returned un-cashed. It was claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to a mark-up of Rs,54,000 on the said amount. A decree for the suit amount was accordingly prayed for. The defendants put in appearance and sought leave to appear and to defend the suit. Leave was granted vide order dated 5-6-2003. Written statement was filed. It was pleaded that the defendants had no business dealings with the plaintiff, in fact, they had borrowed a sum of Rs,1,89,000 from Muhammad Javed in the year 1995 for business and had been paying interest. The accounts were settled in January, 1999 and that all the amounts were paid. Javed who is married to the sister of plaintiff had taken six cheques by way of security which were filled up by the plaintiff on the said Javed and the suit has been filed. Following issues were framed by the learned trial.
Court:-
(1) Whether the cheque No,19128404 dated 11-1-2001cheque No,24657265 dated 24-4-2001, No,19128409 dated 31-3-2001, No,19128410 dated 30-12-2001 issued against the amount of Rs,2,48,000 were merely issued as security?OPD
(2) Whether the defendants have paid all the dues and no due is pending against him? OPD
(3) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay anything to plaintiff and that if he was paid Rs,1,89,000 by Muhammad Javed as loan which amount was returned by him with profit? OPD (3A) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(313) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD (3C) Whether the suit has been filed with mala fide intention and is not maintainable? OPD (3D) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD (3E) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs,3,02000 as prayed for by him?
OPP.
(4) Relief.
' In the first instance, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 30-9-2003. The defendants filed FAO No,95/04 which was allowed by this Court on 26-5-2004. The decree was set aside and the learned trial Court was directed to decide the matter after recording evidence of the parties.
Thereafter, the evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit in the sum of Rs,1,30,000 with mark-up at Bank rate from the date of institution of the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10-3-2005.
2-A. RFA No,183/05 has been filed by the defendants praying for dismissal of the entire suit and RFA No,401/05 has been filed by the plaintiff praying that the decree by modified so as to decree the suit in the sum of Rs,1,98,000.
3. Malik Naveed Akram, Advocate/ learned counsel for the defendants argues that the learned trial Court has mis-read the evidence on record while decreeing the suit to the said extent. According to nim, the document relied upon did not finally decide the matter but was only a reference of the suit dispute to an arbitrator. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the defendants themselves produced all the said documents which were relied upon by the leirned trial Court. He presses his appeal on the basis of document Exh.D.5 which is a decision of some respectables.
4. I have gone through- the records of the learned trial Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have already reproduced above the respective pleadings of the parties. It appears that both the parties opted to walk out of their pleadings in the course of evidence. It was the plaintiff himself appearing as P.W.l who introduced the matter of compromise/agreement between the parties whereby ultimately Rs,1,30,000 were agreed to be paid. The documents regarding the said agreements i.e, Exh.D.3 and Exh.D.5 were also admitted in evidence without any objection from any side and the execution thereof has not been denied by any of the parties. In the said over all context the last agreement is dated 25-10-2002 (Exh.D.3) according to which the dispute pertains to a sum of Rs,1,30,000. I, therefore, do find that the decree passed by the learned trial Court is in accordance with the evidence produced by the plaintiff himself.
5. So far. As RFA No,401/05 is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on Exh.D.5. It is true that this document evidences an agreement to pay Rs,1,98,000. However, this is dated 13-7-2001 (Exh.D.5). Whereas I have already noted above that Exh.D.3 was the last agreement on the subject.
I, therefore, do not find any force in the plaintiff's appeal as well. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
6. The record of the learned trial Court be remitted back immediately. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.