' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this R.S.A. The judgment and decree dated 20-2-2007 passed by the learned. Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar has been challenged whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2005 whereby suit filed by the on respondent-plaintiff was partially decreed.
2. In this case pre-admission notice was issued on 9-4-2007. Today, with the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is being decided as pacca case, as the appellants have annexed with this R.S.A. All certified copies of record of the trial Court as well as of the first appellate court, therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of record available in the shape of certified copies, therefore, there is no need to call for the record of the courts below.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs,8,00,000 detail whereof has been given in. The head note of the plaint. The plaintiff-respondent stated that he purchased a Hiace Wagon Model-1982 fully described in the head note of the plaint from defendant No,2 on 2-8-2001 for consideration of Rs,4,15,000. The same was got transferred in the name of the plaintiff-respondent on 7-5-2003. The said vehicle was seized by the Customs Department on 30-6-2003 on the basis that it is a smuggled one. The matter was pursued before the Customs Department but ultimately, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs,8, 00,000 wherein price of vehicle Rs,4,15,000, maintenance of the vehicle Rs,1,50,000 , expenditures incurred for pursuing the litigation with regard to the vehicle in the Customs Department as well as in the High Court Rs,1,35,000 and Rs,1,00,000 for defamation have been claimed. The suit for the plaintiff was decreed to the extent of Rs,6,50,000 and his claim of Rs,1,50,000 for the alleged expenditure incurred upon the maintenance of the vehicle was refused. The appeal was filed before the first appellate court but the same was dismissed, hence this R.S.A.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the plaintiff-respondent used the vehicle for commercial object for more than two years after purchasing from the appellants. Further states that both the courts below have ignored Exh.D-1, the certificate with regard to the latest payment of the excise duties as well as customs duties of the impugned vehicle. Learned counsel states that there is absolutely no iota of evidence with regard to the damages on the file. Further that even the plaintiff has not provided, the actual detail of the expenditures incurred by the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, states that t this extent by both the courts below is against the law. Even he has challenged that the plaintiff has nowhere stated that the vehicle was not customs paid and intentionally sold to the plaintiff. Learned counsel states that the case of the plaintiff before the Customs Department was that it is customs paid vehicle and there is absolutely no defect in the vehicle, therefore, states that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was not maintainable.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff states that one of the appellant- defendant was associated with the plaintiff-respondent in the proceedings before the Customs Department. Learned counsel states that with regard to the mental torture and expenditure no specific pleading and evidence are available, then rule of thumb be applied. Learned counsel further states that in the light of judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan (Shariat Appellate Bench) titled Federation of Pakistan v. Public-at-large (1988 SCMR 2041), contends that the appellants were bound under the law to inform the buyer about the defects of the vehicle at the time of contract in the light of amended section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which is made applicable w.e.f, 15-2-1989 through this judgment.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material available on record.
7. It is clear that the alleged defect of non-payment of customs on the impugned vehicle was not in the knowledge of the defendants-appellants, as throughout the proceedings before the Customs Department and before this court in shape of writ petition, one of the defendants, associated the plaintiff and even the case of the plaintiff is not that the defendants have defrauded him and plaintiff even did not assert that it was actually defective' vehicle which has been pointed out by the Customs Department. The findings record by the Additional Collector in his order dated 23-10-2003 in para No,5 are as under:-- "In the light of all the facts, that, have been narrated above, it was alleged that the accused had by his mala fide intention, manipulated the vehicle with the connivance of the smugglers and is smuggled one, non-customs city paid having shelters and cover of registered number. Thus the Toyota Hiace Wagon, bearing Registration No,MHA-3265 having Chassis No . LH30v-3863368 (as per Registration Book) Chassis No, (physically) LH30v-3863368, cut and welded iron tukri exhibiting the physical chassis number as endorsed above, the tukri affixed by re-welding in the place of chassis number inside kupah is a. Smuggled vehicle and has been given the shelter and cover of registered documents."
' The appellants have purchased this vehicle from one Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Ashraf to whom they have, also given another vehicle owned by them Datsun Pick-up Model 1985. Further through Exh.D-1 it is clear that there was no defect in the vehicle. Further it was a customs paid vehicle according to the certificate Exh.D-1. In this view of the matter it is clear that even if there was any defect in the vehicle, it was not in the knowledge of the parties. It is also a fact that the vehicle was seized by the Custom Department and was auctioned therefore, the decree to the extent of Rs,4,15,000 is unexceptionable.
8. For proving expenditure etc., the plaintiff was required to specifically plead the detail of the expenditure and to lead specific evidence with regard to the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff. I have noticed that no such specific pleading and evidence are available on the record. Further for grant of damages it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead in the plaint that defendants have intentionally given him the defective vehicle and further he was bound to prove specific damages in accordance with the law applicable on the IA subject. It is also well-settled now that pleadings cannot be given weight of evidence, till the time pleadings are not substantiated through evidence, the pleadings are worthless without evidence if not admitted by the other party. The plaintiff has failed to specifically plead and lead evidence with regard to the damages claimed by him. In this view of the matter the findings of both the courts below with regard to damages and expenditures claimed by the plaintiff are contrary to law and same are set aside. The result would be C. That this appeal is partially accepted and findings of two courts below to the extent of grant of expenditure etc. Amounting to Rs,1,35,000 and damages Rs,1,00,000 are set aside. The decree to the extent of Rs,4,15,000 is maintained.
' Appeal partially accepted.