AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioners-defendants have impugned the judgment/decree dated 30.11.1995 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed, and the judgment/decree dated 21.05.1992 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby suit for declaration filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration on 02.09.1984 wherein he challenged the letter No. STG/G/745, dated 10.07.1984 issued by defendant No. 2 and prayed that on the basis of this letter, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 cannot recover the amount of fine imposed upon the plaintiff. The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit. Learned Trial Court from the divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues on 10.03.1986 and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. The plaintiff produced Abdul Rauf, Sub-Engineer Building, Sub-Division; Rahim Yar Khan, as P.W-1 and Qazi Saeed Ahmad as P.W-2 and also produced documentary evidence. In rebuttal only documentary evidence was produced by the defendants and no one was produced in oral evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.1992 learned Trial Court decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree, defendants filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 30.11.1995.
Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that for construction of building of a school plaintiff- respondent participated in the tenders and he was successful bidder, therefore, work was allocated to him and he was obliged to complete the work in stipulated period for which he was to complete the same on 29.02.1984 but he has not completed within stipulated period, but he completed the said work with extended period on 30.04.1984 and that the petitioners-defendants rightly imposed penalty upon him and the letter issued against him is in accordance with law; that both the Courts below have not rightly appreciated the 'evidence available on the file. It has been further contended that generally there is an Arbitration clause in the agreement and under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, civil suit was not competent. Lastly prayed that the impugned judgments/decrees of Courts below be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff stated that there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter recorded by two Courts below, which ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. Further states that it is an admitted position that the work was completed within the permissible extended period which has been admitted in written statement and in the statement of P.W-1 who is Overseer to whom building was handed over after completion; that the alleged agreement referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners is not on the record and that when the party has participated in the proceedings the objection if any available under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, goes and it cannot be argued and pressed at this stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. There are concurrent findings of facts in the matter recorded by two Courts below by way of which every bit of evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties was considered and nothing is shown to have been overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration.
These findings on question of facts and law which are based on proper appreciation or oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit, are not liable to be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
Moreover, there are admissions on the part of defendants-petitioners that work was completed within extended period, even then the impugned letter was issued while imposing fine upon the respondent-plaintiff. The argument of learned counsel for respondent is valid that when there is no agreement on the file, then the Civil Court cannot decide the matters on the basis of presumptions.
It is also a legal position that when a party takes part in the proceedings of a suit and does not press Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, at its first hearing or as early as possible, that objection even if available to a party cannot be permitted to raise first time at this revisional stage.
7. In view of the above discussion, I see no force in this civil revision, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Civil revision .