1. ' SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.--- This is first civil appeal, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad, whereby suit for money worth Rs.4,12,612.32 has been decreed in favour of respondent against one Khani Zaman the predecessor of the present appellants.
2. ' The precise facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that (Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence of Pakistan) filed the above quoted suit on 18-7-1987 in the Court of Additional District Judge Muzaffarabad, wherein it was alleged that the defendant (predecessor of the appellants) was a Contractor, who entered into a contract with the plaintiff (respondent) to supply certain food items, meat and fresh vegetable etc. Vide contract deed Nos.2 and 3 of 1984 and 1985. That according to terms and conditions of deed, the said Khani Zaman failed to supply the items mentioned in the deeds at their destination, thus, the plaintiff/respondents at the risk of Contractor made the arrangements and as a result of which Rs.4,12,612.32 was recoverable from the said defendant. That on filing of the suit the defendant Khani Zaman contested the suit by filing written statement and after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge Muzaffarabad decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 30- 7-2003 with costs. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant/defendant filed the instant appeal before this Court on 27-10-2003. During the pendency. Of appeal, the defendant/appellant expired and the legal heirs of Khani Zaman (deceased) were brought on record by the order of this Court dated 15-12-2009.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal the learned counsel forappellants argued that basically the suit was filed without power of attorney and without any legal sanction/permission which is illegal and the suit is liable to dismissal on this score. It was further argued that the Additional District Judge Muzaffarabad also admitted the fact, but mentioned in the impugned judgment that the power of attorney of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan is on the file, whereas the power of attorney of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan was filed in the trial Court after 7/8 years, thus, the trial Court fell in error. It was agitated by the learned counsel that the suit is liable to dismissal, because the suit was instituted on 18-7-1987, whereas, the appointment of the Advocate was made on 1-9-1990. Thus, the impugned judgment is nullity in the eyes of law. It was further argued by the learned counsel, that, the deeds were executed in Murree Pakistan and a suit regarding one of the deeds was instituted in Civil Court Rawalpindi Pakistan, whereas the instant suit was filed before the trial Court.
4. As the cause of action arose in Rawalpindi District, hence the trial Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The learned counsel while concluding his arguments submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside and the suit of the respondents may be dismissed on the grounds of; incompetency, for the cause of action arose in Pakistan, agreement was not performable, no evidence on non-performance of the deed is available on the record; and on the point of jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set- aside and the suit merits dismissal under section 79 read with Order XXVII, Rules (1 and 2), C.P.C. He has relied upon PLD 1984 SCAJK 13 and PLD 1993 SCAJK 8.
5. ' On the other hand, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for respondent categorically repudiated the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants and submitted that the suit was originally filed by Ch. Latif Akbar Advocate. It was argued that on the point of jurisdiction, the trial Court returned the plaint to the plaintiff/respondent on 29-1-1995 against which an appeal was filed before the High Court and the High Court vide its order dated 7-3-2002 accepted the same and ordered that under section 20(c), C.P.C., the trial Court is possessed with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. He also argued that the parties lead the evidence in the light of issues framed by the trial Court and Cap. Tahir Saleem, the witness of the plaintiff/respondent got recorded his statement on 24-6-1992 and the predecessor of the present appellants/defendant also got recorded his statement on 7-11-1993. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the written statement filed by the, defendant was confronted to him during his statement before the trial, Court, which was admitted as correct and the same was exhibited as PG/1. Thus, the claim of the respondent/plaintiff was admitted by the defendant and under law acts admitted need not to be proved. He added that ether documents exhibited as PG, PF, PE, PD, PB, PH, (Agreement deed)
6. DD and DD/1 and the documents which are admitted by the defendant. Hence the suit has been decreed by the trial Court within all 4 corners of law, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It transpires from the record of the case that originally the suit was filed on behalf of respondent, the Federation of Pakistan by Ch. Latif Akbar Advocate in the light of his appointment under law through power of attorney of Government of Pakistan Justice Division Letter No.1(210)/86/SOL-1, dated 24-4-1986 and the plaint was signed by the learned counsel, which was filed on 18-7-1987, hence the suit was competently filed. It also reveals from the record that matter of jurisdiction was decided by this Court on 7-3-2002 which had attained finality, hence issue of jurisdiction also stands resolved.
8. ' As far as, the evidence of the parties in the light of respective issues is concerned. The respondent/plaintiff in support of his version produced 2 witnesses named Naib Subedar Aali Qadar son of Sultan Muhammad and Cap. Tahir Saleem. On the other hand, Mr. Khani Zaman deceased got recorded his statement and the supra noted documentary evidence. The crux of all the evidence of the parties is that the case of the respondent/plaintiff comes within the purview of admitted facts and facts admitted need not to be proved, meaning thhereby the appeal of these appellants failed. The trial Court reached the correct conclusion which warrants no interference by this Court.
9. ' Thus, keeping in view, the above, the appeal stands dismissed with costs.