' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, petitioner, Mst. Sumaira Bibi daughter of Qutabud-Din seeking setting aside of judgment and decree, dated 13-5-2008 passed by learned Additional. Sessions Judge Chichawathi, District Sahiwal, and seeks restoration of judgment and decree, dated 15-11-2008 passed by Judge Family Court, Chichawatni.
2. Brief facts of the instant writ petition are that respondent No,3 married with petitioner on 8-4- 2004 in accordance with Islamic Shariah. In the beginning the relations between the spouses remained cordial which subsequently become strained which gave rise to litigation between the spouses. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles on 8-2-2008, claiming Rs,81,900 value of dowry articles, detail of articles was given in the list Exh.P.1. Respondent No,3 contested the suit, filing his written statement on 13-10-2008 learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues on 17-10-2008:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? OPP
(4) Relief.
' After failure in pre-trial reconciliation the parties were asked to produce evidence in support of their respective contention.
3. Petitioner herself appeared as P.W.1., Mazhar Iqbal son of Qutab Din as P.W.2 and placed on record list of dowry articles Exh.P-1, Nikah Nama Mark-A in documentary evidence. The defendant appeared as D.W.1. And produced Allah Ditta son of Haitum D.W.2.
4. After hearing both the parties, learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner to the extent of dowry articles for Rs,60,000 vide judgment and decree, dated 15- 11-2008. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree respondent No,3 on 5-1-2009 filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chichawatni, who vide judgment and decree, dated 13-5-2009 accepted the appeal filed by the respondent, Mazhar Hussain and dismissed the suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by the present petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Additional District Judge did not apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case; petitioner/plaintiff herself appeared as P.W.1., who fully supported the contentions of the plaint in support of her statement; Mazhar Ali appeared as P.W.2.
And corroborated statement of P.W.1. In the documentary evidence list of dowry articles Exh.P-1 and Nikah Nana Mark-A. No objection was raised on behalf of respondent/ defendant at the time of production of Exh.P.1. List of dowry articles. He further submits that at the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner had given to the petitioner dowry articles mentioned in the list Exh.P.1.; learned counsel further submitted that judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence; learned Judge Family Court after discussing the evidence of both the parties at length and after correct appraisal of evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs,60,000 while she had claimed Rs,81,900 for dowry articles.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3 supported the judgment of the lower appellate Court passed by Additional District Judge; learned counsel for the respondent submitted that findings of the Judge Family Court on issues Nos. 2 and 3 is result of misreading and non- reading of evidence and non-application of judicial mind.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of the Courts below carefully.
8. Both the Courts below have made appraisal of the evidence on record with their own point of view on the same evidence learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff for Rs,60,000 but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
The only thing to be seen is of which Court judgment and decree is rational, convincing and based on reasons. The appraisal of evidence made by the learned Judge Family Court appears to be convincing, rational and based on cogent reasons as compared to appraisal of evidence made by the learned Additional District Judge. P.W.1. Petitioner/plaintiff in her statement stated that her parents gave dowry articles according to list Exh.P.1. P.W.2 supported the same, corroborated the statement of P.W.1 at the time of producing the list of articles, Exh.P.1. Respondent/defendant did not raise objection. How at what time Exh. P.1. Was prepared. The contention of the husband/ defendant was that no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage same was fabricated and there was no valid receipt for purchase of dowry articles were produced by the plaintiff/petitioner about said articles. Suit could not have been decreed. List of dowry article produced by plaintiff/petitioner reveals that articles mentioned their ordinarily are given to bride at the time of her marriage. The judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court/Additional District Judge is based on conjectures and surmises, not based on convincing or rational reasons. Even the poor parents never made Rukhsati of her beloved daughter had used to give some articles in dowry articles which cannot be thought and that parents send their daughter at the time of Rukhsati empty handed. Value of Rs,60,000 in these days have little value.
9. In the light of above discussion, the judgment and decree, dated 13-5-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal is hereby set aside and judgment and decree, dated 15- 11-2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal is restored.