M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that at the time of marriage of the parties, as alleged by the petitioner, she was given dowry articles of Rs. 2,06,475/- as per list attached with the plaint as Annex "A". Subsequently, the relations between the parties became strained and their marriage was dissolved on 7.3.2007 in a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner before learned Judge Family Court Mianwali.
2. After dissolution of marriage through a Court decree, the petitioner asked respondent No. 1 for the return of her dowry articles, but on his refusal to do so, she filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
2,06,475/- as dowry articles. The learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2008 decreed the same to the extent of Rs. 96000/- in lieu of the dowry articles.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District JudgE vide order dated 26.4.2008, resultantly the suit filed by the petitioner stood dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court decided the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 on surmises and conjectures. She further submits that if the petitioner has not claimed the dowry articles at the time of filing suit for dissolution of marriage, it does not mean that she is not entitled to get the same. She - further submits that suit was filed within a period of limitation and thus, no adverse inference could have been drawn against her.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the learned Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents appended with this petition, I have noticed that though the petitioner claimed Rs. 2,06,475/- as amount of dowry articles but her suit was decreed to the extent of Rs. 96000/- and she did not file any appeal against the rejection of her claim in respect of the remaining amount. Thus, her claim beyond Rs.
96000/- has come to an end. I have noticed that alongwith the plaint a list of dowry articles was appended and the findings of learned Additional. District Judge that the petitioner has neither got exhibited the list of alleged articles of dowry nor while appearing as PW-1, gave detail of the same, appears to be misreading of evidence. The petitioner has stated in Paras Nos. 2 and 6 of the plaint that the dowry articles to the tune of Rs. 2,06,475/- were given to her and while appearing as PW-1, she has stated that dowry was given to her according to the list prepared by her parents. The learned Appellate Court below also overlooked a suggestion put to PW-1 by the defendant/respondent that she had already taken dower articles and thus it was for him to prove that dowry articles were taken by the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, therefore, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mianwali Camp at Piplan, I remand the case with the direction to the learned Appellate Court to re-hear the arguments and decide the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the receipt of the order.