' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that respondent was married with one Muhammad Asghar on 11-11-1998 who died on 5-8-2002. Thereafter present suit was filed on 10-12- 2003 against the petitioner (husband of Asghar's sister) for the recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs,1,98,500. Suit was contested by the petitioner and learned trial Court recording evidence vide judgment and decree dated 19-10-2006 decreed the suit to the extent of Rs,60,000 which was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19-5-2007. Both judgments and decrees are being assailed through the instant constitutional petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent had stated in the cross- examination that list of dowry articles was prepared by her Peer Sahib but the said Peer has not been produced in the witness box. Likewise she stated that, finance for the purpose of dowry was provided by her brother Muhammad Arshad who was available but he was also not produced. It is further added that she categorically stated that receipts of the purchase of dowry articles are with her but the said receipts were not tendered in evidence.
3. As against this, D.W.1 and D.W.2 categorically stated that respondent was residing at the dera of a Peer and said Asghar had purchased her in consideration of Rs,25,000 from the said Peer and there was no question of dowry having been given to the respondent by anybody particularly in view of the fact that father of respondent was also not happy on this marriage as admitted by her in statement. D.W.1 and D.W.2 were not subjected to cross-examination, therefore, the fact narrated above necessarily required to be believed as right of cross-examination was closed by the trial Court on 10-7-2006.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that at the time when the suit was pending, Peer Sahib had passed away. Further submits that father of the respondent had also agreed later on to the marriage.
5. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. The two courts below have made rough estimate with regard to the amount of dowry articles without adverting to the facts that material evidence which was available with the respondent in the shape of scribe of the list i,e, Peer Sahib was not produced. There is nothing on the record that he was not alive at the time when the evidence was recorded. Respondent has also withheld her brother Muhammad Arshad who was financer of the dowry articles and was available at the relevant time. Receipts of the purchase of articles were available with the respondent but the same have also not been produced in evidence. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of marriage father of the respondent was not happy with marriage, therefore, all these aspects clearly demonstrates that respondent has failed to establish her case with regard to dowry articles. On the other hand statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2 had gone unchallenged, therefore, net result of the above discussion is that no case for decree is made out. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside.