MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, J. --- Precisely, facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles on 24.7.2008 in which written statement was filed on 28.10.2008. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, three issues including that of relief was framed. The learned Trial Court after fully scanning the evidence available on record vide its judgment and decree dated 27.6.2009 decreed the suit filed by the petitioner in the following terms:- "In the light of my observation on issue No. 1 plaintiff is awarded dowry ankles as per list filed by her excluding articles mentioned at Serial Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 66. Plaintiff is awarded articles as per list excluding articles mentioned at Serial Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 66 and alternate price of rest of the dowry articles is fixed as Rs. 1,57,500/- and it would be left on discretion of the plaintiff herself to take the articles and if she feels that articles are not in fit state she can get its alternate price."
Against the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, both the parties filed appeals on 23.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 respectively. The learned Appellate Court after detailed deliberation vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent while partly accepting the appeal of petitioner in the following terms:--- "As a result thereof suit of the appellant would be treated to have been decreed to the extent of articles mentioned in the list appended with the plaint excluding articles at Serial Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 56 to 66 have also been excluded, tentative price of Rs. 1,57,500/- is reduced to an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-."
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2009, petitioner opted to file this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel submits that though an option was given to the petitioner to take oath on "Holy Quran" the same was given against the provisions of Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that detail given in the list of dowry articles was fully proved by the evidence produced by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, as such both the Courts below have fallen in error while passing the judgments. Further submits that detail of list of articles comprises of normal use of articles, as such both the Courts below ought to have accepted the version of petitioner and should have decreed the suit to the extent of amount claimed for. It is further submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court has wrongly excluded the gift articles from the decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Next submits that articles of "Bari" as well as "Gifts" were ownership of the petitioner, as such Court ought to have granted the decree in full amount as prayed for. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the submissions made by the petitioner, it is a fit case for interference in the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have gone through the record.
4. As far as the contention of the learned counsel that offer was made to the petitioner to take oath on Holy Quran is concerned, the same is not accepted and would not be a bar to the passing of the judgment. Moreover, the other contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner relates to appreciation of evidence which the two Courts have already done so, in the given circumstances, the jurisdiction of writ petitioner is very limited.
5. This being so, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as suc.