' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition judgment and decree dated 22-10-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan has been assailed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent/ plaintiff Mst. Tasmina Bibi filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles or in alternative its price amounting to Rs,2,35,000 against the petitioner. According to the plaint marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16-1-2001. The couple remained issueless. As the marriage was in exchange marriage (Watta Satta) and as such the sister of the petitioner was not willing to live with her husband and due to the reason the petitioner started to torture her and ultimately ousted her from his house. Number of efforts were made for reconciliation but all efforts failed and ultimately the respondent obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage through the Court.
3. The respondent demanded the return of her dowry articles which were given to her at the time of her marriage but the petitioner / defendant refused to return the articles and as such the suit was filed for recovery of dowry articles. The detail of dowry articles has been given in para No,4 of the plaint.
4. The defendant/petitioner appeared in the suit and refuted the allegations of respondent/plaintiff. He further claims that the dowry articles which were given to the respondent / plaintiff were returned to her.
5. From the divergent pleadings of of the parties, the following issues were framed:--- "Issues:--
(1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles as detailed in para No,4 of the plaint or in alternative its price Rs,2,35,000 from the defendant?
(2) Relief.
6. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and the suit was partially decreed for return of part of the dowry articles or in lieu thereof Rs,20,000.
7. The plaintiff / respondent assailed the said judgment and decree dated 23-6-2008 through an appeal. The learned appeal Court vide judgment and decree dated 22-10-2008 accepted the appeal and enhanced the return of dowry articles or in lieu thereof its price amounting to Rs,1,00,000.
8. Through the present writ petition the petitioner / defendant has assailed the said judgment and decree.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appeal Court has erred in law while enhancing the dowry articles or in lieu thereof the price of articles from Rs,20,000 to Rs,1,00,000.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage was exchange marriage (Watta Satta). The sister of the petitioner when filed. a suit against brother of respondent / plaintiff, a decree for recovery of Rs,30,000 was passed in lieu of dowry articles. The learned Court below has failed to consider this aspect of the case. He further contends that the learned appeal Court has acted illegally by referring the evidence available on record. The learned appeal Court has failed to take into the account of financial condition of the petitioner who is a poor cultivator and cultivates the land of others.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment and decree of the learned appeal Court.
11. Heard. Record perused.
12. The learned appeal Court has scanned the evidence produced by the parties and observed that in para No,4 of the plaint, the respondent has given the detail of dowry articles. She in her statement has repeated the same. She in cross-examination replied that her father is the owner of land measuring 8 Acres and has substantial means to give dowry articles as stated in the plaint.
The petitioner himself appeared as his own witness and has not produced any other witness. D.W.1 / petitioner has admitted that dowry articles amounting to Rs,2,51,000 were given to her sister who was the wife of respondent's brother. As it was an exchange marriage, hence and the very admission of the petitioner is sufficient to negate his claim that no dowry articles were given to the plaintiff. From the said admission it is established that both the parties were given dowry articles.
The learned appeal Court after perusing the record came to the conclusion that the value of dowry articles sought to be returned are Rs,1,00,000 and as such he passed the decree for return of dowry articles or in lieu thereof Rs,1,00,000. The petitioner has failed to place on record any document showing that he is a poor cultivator and is not able to return the dowry articles or its price. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to pinpoint any illegally or irregularity committed by the learned appeal Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree. In writ jurisdiction it is very difficult for this Court to reexamine the entire evidence again and again. Hence, this petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly.