' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-3-2002 passed by Mian Muhammad Shafi, learned Additional District Judge, Narowal whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal dismissed the appeal of petitioners and maintained the judgment and decree dated 23-6-2001 passed by Malik Muhammad Tariq Jasra, learned Civil Judge, Narowal .
2. Brief facts as narrated in the plaint are that respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,20,000 on the ground that petitioners/defendants purchased a thresher from him for consideration of Rs,30,000 six months prior to the filing of suit. It was further contended that petitioners/defendants paid Rs,10,000 as earnest money and it was agreed between the parties that petitioners would pay the balance amount of Rs,20,000 within a period of three months but they did not honour their pledge and did not pay Rs,20,000 in spite of repeated demands. Consequently, the respondent/plaintiff left with no option except to file the instant suit for recovery of Rs,20,000. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit and claimed that respondent/plaintiff obtained Rs,40,000 from the petitioners on the pretext that his father is sending people abroad who can also send defendant No,1 if he pays Rs,40,000. It was further contended in the plaint that the petitioners paid Rs,40,000 to the respondent/plaintiff but thereafter the respondents returned Rs,20,000 and made a promise to pay the balance amount of Rs,20,000 which was never honoured. Rather he filed the instant suit for the recovery of Rs,20,000 against the petitioners/defendants which is a false and frivolous suit. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--- "ISSUES
(i) Whether the facts of the plaint are based on mala fide, fictitious, forged and plaintiff has not come in the court with clean hands? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit due to his words and conduct? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has filed the suit just to harass the defendants, therefore, they are entitled to special cost under section 35-A of Cr.P.C? OPD
(iv) Whether the defendants purchased the thresher machine from the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs,30,000 therefore, due recovery of Rs,20,000 towards the defendants? OPP
(v) Relief."
3. The parties adduced their evidence and vide judgment and decree dated 22-6-2001 passed by Malik Muhammad Tariq Jasra, learned Civil Judge, Narowal decreed suit in favour of plaintiff/respondent. The petitioners/defendants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court which met the same fate and vide judgment and decree dated 16-3-2002, learned Additional District Judge, Narowal dismissed the appeal. Hence this civil revision.
4. None has appeared on behalf of respondents who are proceeded ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned judgment and decree as well as the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, which is miscarriage of justice. He further contends that all the P. Ws. Are interested witnesses of the plaintiff because they have admitted during their cross-examination that they are friends of plaintiff. He further contends that there is no independent corroboration of the claim of the plaintiff. He further contends that the evidence is silent about the make of thresher and the place from which the thresher was purchased, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the instant suit for recovery is a counterblast against the petitioners and it was appropriate that the respondent/plaintiff would have approached the competent forum under section 3 of Reconciliation Ordinance, 1967.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. All the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertain to question of fact which have been dealt with minutely by both the learned courts below who, after examining the statements/evidence of both the parties, had passed judgments and decrees in favour of respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments. Further, under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, question of fact could not be examined.
8. In view of the above discussion, this civil revision is without merit. The same is dismissed.