' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through the instant writ petition, petitioner Muhammad Riaz son of Allah Diwaya has assailed the judgment and decree dated 5-12-2009, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment and decree dated 14-7-2009, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Kehror Pacca, had decreed the suit of the respondent to the extent of recovery of dowry articles or their value of Rs,75000 and the suit of the respondent to the extent of recovery of gold ornaments was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Kausar Mai daughter of Allah Wasaya, respondent No,3 herein, filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner, wherein it was contended that marriage of the respondent-plaintiff was solemnized about 8-1/2 years before filing of the suit, which was filed on 31-1-2009, out of the wedlock one minor daughter was born; this marriage between the spouses was exchange marriage thereafter the respondent because of strained relations between them got a decree for dissolution of marriage. In the suit for recovery of dowry articles she claimed the said articles worth Rs,2,50,000, as described by her in the suit, given to her by her parents at the time of marriage which were in the custody of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit by filing written statement taking certain preliminary objections including the objection of limitation.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following five issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs,2,50,000,. If so on what grounds? OPP. .
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, she is estopped by her words and conduct, has not come to the Court with clean hands and suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD.
(3) Whether the instant suit is time barred and same has been filed to harass and blackmail the defendant, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(4) Whether the instant suit has been filed as counter blast against the suit filed by Mst. Anser Mai sister of the defendant for recovery of dowry articles and the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD.
(5) Relief.
' Both the parties produced their evidence. Plaintiff-respondent herself appeared as P.W.1 in support of her claim in the suit. She also produced receipts of box etc. As Exh.P.1, of clothes as Exh.P.2 and receipt of `Gada' Takya etc. As Exh.P.3. To disprove the claim of the respondent-plaintiff, petitioner himself appeared as D.W.1. He did not produce any documentary evidence.
5. The learned trial Court decided issue No,1 partly in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-petitioner. He on the basis of evidence assessed the value of dowry articles, excluding the gold ornaments, at Rs,75,000. On Issues Nos.2 to 4, which were to be proved by the defendant-petitioner, the learned trial Court held that the defendant failed to prove them, therefore, the Court decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused minutely the material available on the file. The defendant-petitioner while appearing in the witness-box denied that any dowry articles were given by the parents of the respondent-plaintiff lady as, according to him, their marriage was of Watta Satta as his sister Mst. Ansar Mai was married to the brother of the plaintiff- respondent Mst. Kausar Mai. The plaintiff-respondent proved her claim by producing receipts. The learned trial Court rightly decided issue No,1 in favour of the plaintiff and rightly decreed the suit for dowry articles assessing the value at Rs,75,000 excluding the gold ornaments claimed by her. The appeal of the petitioner-defendant has also rightly been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge giving cogent reasons. The concurrent findings of both the. Courts below need no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed.