1. Contention of Mohammad Aslam Shah vide his instant petition is that he was running a "Commission Shop" Grain Market, Bahawalnagar. The respondent purchased "Cotton Seed" of worth Rs.15,41,175/-. At the time of purchase, it was settled if Seed does not grow properly, its claim will be made by the respondent to the claimant, Rs.1,95,845/- i.e paid in cash and thereafter, claimant sold Seed amounting to Rs.4,85,175/-. The yield came very low and respondent was complained regarding the same at which he asked that he shall return the price within 2/4 days.
2. That claimant has to return the price to the purchasers who have purchased from him with a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondent was asked to make payment but he refused rather insulted the claimant.
3. Claimant got checked the Seed from "Agricultural Department" from where it proved to be defective and not approved one.
4. Due legal notice was served to the respondent on 2.1.14 which was never replied, hence the petition.
5. Respondent contested the petition on legal and factual grounds submitting that he is running the business of Seed in name and style of "Chief Seed Corporation" and he is approved Government contract and the Seed is sold in a approved packets/bags of the Government and no complaint what so ever been received against the product. That claimant of this case was providing empty bags to the respondent and then he started selling the Seeds and he used to return Seed which was not sold. That claimant purchased Seed amounting to Rs.15,41,175/- in the year 2012 from the respondent out of which he returned Seed amounting to Rs. 10,56,000/- and sold the Seed amounting to Rs.4,85,175/-. That claimant has not paid this much amount to the respondent and further amount of Rs. 1,30,525/- is outstanding against the claimant pertaining to year 2011 and in this way, claimant is to pay amount Rs. 6,15,700/-. That claimant has paid amounting to Rs.1,19,200/- to the respondent in the year 2012 and now, an amount of Rs.4,96,500/- is outstanding against him.
6. That respondent demanded his money back, claimant used delaying tactics at which respondent instituted recovery suit at Civil Court, Fortabbas and just to frustrate that suit, the claimant filed the instant claim with just blackmailing tactics. Petition is found not proceedable, merits dismissal.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent strongly argued that in fact that provided Seed amounting to Rs.15,41,175/- in the year 2012, claimant returned the Seed amounting to Rs.10,56,000/- and amount of Rs.4,85,175/- was still outstanding but claimant was not paying despite repeatedly demands and finally respondent had to file his "Civil Suit" at "Civil Court", Fortabbas which is yet pending and next date of hearing is 19.1.15. Just to avoid that payment, claimant has wrongly filed the instant petition. The petition is badly barred by limitation and facts have been twisted. Petition is based upon malafide, so is liable to be dismissed with special cost.
8. Learned counsel for claimant was requested that he will argue the matter after a while after consultation his client.
9. File has been kept waiting till closing hours but neither claimant nor learned counsel has turned up.
10. As the arguments on main petition has already been heard on the part of learned counsel for respondent in presence of learned counsel for claimant, so I would opt to decide the petition on merits.
11. Claimant has simply submitted affidavit of himself as well as affidavits of two other witnesses but he has failed to argue his case or to be rebutted the condition that a "Civil Suit" has already been filed for recovery of Rs.4,96,500/- pending in the court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Fortabbas.
12. Even otherwise, claimant has failed to show what "Faulty Service" has been provided by the respondent.
13. Question of limitation is also very much important because matter pertaining to year 2012 is being agitated in the year 2014 which is badly barred by time. Documentary proof in the shape of "Khata" submitted by respondent/defendant alongwith his written statement has not been rebutted by the claimant. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that petition is misconceived and not sustainable in the eyes of law, same stands dismissed. File be consigned.