' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2003 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Suit No.926/2002.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant, Civil Aviation Authority, established under the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 for the promotion and regulation of civil aviation activities, granted an airline license and Air Operation Certificate to the respondent No.1, who briefly operated airline business. To undertake its airline operations, the Respondent No.1 was given on license Rooms Nos.2060, 2061 and 2062 at Jinnah Terminal Complex Level II and Room 1336 at Level I and also an open/covered space at the apron side by the Appellant. Respondent No.2 is said to be the sole proprietor of Respondent No.1. After only a few months the Respondents were in default towards its dues to the Appellant from June, 1999 till cessation of its operations in March 2001. Vide their letter dated 17.01.2002, the Respondents agreed to the Appellant's proposal to make payment of 50% of their entire outstanding dues but failed to fulfill its obligation. Since the respondents failed to settle their outstanding dues, the appellant filed suit No.962 of 2002 praying for a decree in the sum of Rs.13,048,268/- as on 30.06.2002.
3. Summonses were issued to the defendants/respondents but when the same remained unserved they were served by substituted service. However, when none appeared on behalf of the defendants/respondents, vide order dated 14.4.2003, the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte against them. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.5.2003, the plaintiff was directed to file affidavit in ex- parte proof along with original documents. On 09.09.2003, witness of the plaintiff, namely, Muhammad Jehangir Khan, was examined in Court who produced affidavit in ex-parte proof as well as other supporting documents. Thereafter, the arguments were heard and vide judgment dated 10.10.2003, the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs.12,41,686/-. Since the suit was not decreed in the amount claimed therein, the plaintiff was aggrieved and, hence, filed the present this appeal.
4. Mr. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned single Judge completely ignored the evidence on record and he decreed the suit for a lesser amount. He submitted that the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.13,048,268/- and in this regard the witness of the plaintiff produced the statement of account (Exh. 1/12) which fully supported the claim of the plaintiff and since there was no rebuttal from the respondents, therefore, the suit was to be decreed as prayed. He also referred to the letter dated 3rd June, 2002 wherein the defaulted amount has been shown as Rs.6,524,134/. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned single Judge was not justified in decreeing the suit for a lesser amount than the amount prayed for in the suit.
5. We have heard Mr. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the evidence brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. From perusal of the prayer clause of the suit it transpires that the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.13,048,268/-. Since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, therefore, the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte and the plaintiff was directed to produce affidavit in ex-parte proof along with original documents. Accordingly, one, Muhammad Jehangir Khan, appeared as witness of the plaintiff and he produced documents marked as Exhibits 1/1 to 1/16.
7. We are mindful of the fact that the suit was filed for the recovery of Rs.13,048,268/- and none appeared from the respondents side to rebut the averments made in the suit. However, we are not inclined to concur with the learned counsel for the appellants that in such a case the suit is to be decreed as prayed. On the contrary, we agree with the learned single Judge who has held as under:-- "It hardly needs to be emphasized that a Plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own case and not upon the weakness of the opponent's case. If any authority is needed in this respect, reference can be made to PLD 1958 Privy Council 161.
' In PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 109 it was held as under:-- 'We find this argument devoid of force as it rests on an erroneous assumption that in a civil suit if the other party does not produce any evidence, the claim of the party adducing evidence should be accepted irrespective of the evidence so produced. It is a question of elementary principle that no evidence, even if it is not rebutted, can be accepted ipse dixit without its evaluation and if the Court finds that the one-sided evidence suffers from such grave defects as to render it unreliable, the Court cannot blindly accept the version of such witness."
' Thus it goes without saying that every Court is required to apply its mind before passing a judgment, notwithstanding the factum that no person has appeared before it to oppose, or that the person who wanted to oppose was not allowed to oppose because of his failure to fulfill the requirements of law."
8. Now, it is to be examined whether the claim of the appellant for a decree in the sum of Rs.13,048,268/- is supported by cogent evidence or not.
9. Annexure "B" to the appeal is a letter dated 16th November, 2000 from General Manager of the appellant to the Managing Director of the respondent No.1 which shows that the total amount claimed therein is Rs.1,219,523/-. Annexure "E" to the appeal is another letter dated 24th October, 2001, addressed by the appellant to the Chief Executive of the respondent No.2 which states that "Revenue Branch, QIAP has informed that you have not cleared your outstanding dues amounting to Rs.11,26,376/- nor you have responded to our Notices." In the letter dated 6th February, 2002, (Annexure "F") addressed by Deputy Director Airport to the respondent No.2, the defaulted amount has been shown to be Rs.11,26,376/- "on account of license fee and allied charges" and the respondent No.2 was called upon to make payment of the above dues within seven days.
10. A perusal of the evidence file reveals that the plaintiff also produced "Final Notice M/s. Safe Air" dated 20th August, 2001 (Exhibit 1/14) which also reveals that the outstanding amount on account of license fee and allied charges till August 2001 was R.s.11,26,376/-. The plaintiff also produced a letter dated 24th September, 2001 as Exhibit 1/15. This letter is titled "ACCUMULATION OF OUTSTANDING DUES AMOUNTING TO RS.11,26,376/- AGAINST M/S. SAFE AIR". It is surprising to note that these two letters (Exhibits 1/14 and 1/15) were not annexed with the memo of appeal.
11. All the above documents were addressed by the appellant to the respondents and the total outstanding amount due against the respondents was shown to be Rs. 11,26,376/-. As against this, Annexure "G" (at pages 47- 49), which seems to be an inter-office note, makes reference to Minutes of the meeting dated 12th June, 2002, mentions that "it has been decided to file a recovery suit against M/s. Safe Airline after collecting all material evidence from the concerned Directorate."
The Minutes of the meeting shows that the suit is to be filed for recovery of Rs.13.057 million.
Although these documents have been annexed with the memo of appeal but a perusal of the evidence file shows that the same were not produced in evidence. Annexure "L" to the appeal is a document showing the details of billing and realization from December, 1999 to June 30, 2002 from the respondent No.. This shows that the outstanding amount due against the respondents is Rs.13,048,268/-. However, there is no clarification about the discrepancy that when the outstanding amount against the respondents has been shown to be Rs.11,26,376/- (Annexures Annexure "F" at page 45) and Exhibits 1/14 and 1/15) how it increased to Rs.13,048,268/- on 30th June, 2002 when the Air Operation Certificate issued to the respondent No.1 was already suspended on 6th December, 2000 (Annexure "C" at page 37). We have noted that there is not a single notice/letter which states that the amount due against the respondents is Rs.13,048,376/-.
12. ' In support of his contentions the learned counsel referred to' Exh.1/12, which is purported to be the statement of account in respect of the respondent No.!, and contended that the learned single judge erred in holding that exhibit 1/12 was "absolutely unauthenticated" document and such conclusion by the learned single judge was without any justification when the same had been duly authenticated by the issuing authority itself and no contest in relation to the same had been made any person.
13. The learned single Judge discussed the impact of the above document as under:-- The Plaintiffs have based their claim upon statement (Ex.1/12) wherein the Net Outstanding in 'Balance' column is shown to be Rs. 1,30,48,268/- viz, the amount as claimed in the plaint. This photostat copy which has been attested by the Airport Manager is absolutely unauthenticated document. The statement is not claimed to be the extract of the entries contained in the Books of Accounts maintained by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs opted neither to produce the relevant record, nor the person duly authorized to maintain the books of accounts. The entries contained in the statement being flagrant contradiction of other documents, are apparently concocted and dubious. Such incredible statement, which is blatantly in conflict with several other documents produced and admitted by the Plaintiffs themselves, is neither admissible in evidence, nor could it be trusted with truth."
14. So far as letter dated 3rd June, 2002 (Annexure "L") is concerned, suffice it to say that not a single notice/document has been produced by the appellant/plaintiff which shows that at any point of time the appellant/plaintiff has claimed that the amount due against the respondents is Rs.13,048,268/-. In this letter reference was also made to letter dated 16th May, 2002 and the respondents were called upon to pay 50% i.e. Rs.6,524,134 of the total outstanding amount.
However, the letter dated 16th May, 2002 does not show any amount.
15. The learned single Judge, after discussing the documents exhibited by the witness of the plaintiff, concluded as under:-- 'It seems pertinent to mention here that all the above-said documents were produced by the Plaintiffs themselves in evidence and have been duly exhibited. The Plaintiffs have also produced in evidence certain letters allegedly written by the Defendant. However, from the perusal of letter dated 22.5.2002 (Ex.1/10) purportedly written by the Defendants, they complained of discrimination at the hands of plaintiff. It is alleged that the other companies granted similar licenses by the Plaintiffs, were not stopped to work and were still in operation, despite being tremendously indebted to the plaintiff, whereas the Defendants were treated indifferently. Although the defendants failed to contest, yet quite obviously the hands of plaintiff are soiled."
16. We are also of the view that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands as the documents produced in evidence by its witness (Exhibits 1/14 and 1/15) were not annexed with the memo of appeal. These two documents clearly show that as of 20th August 2002 and 24th September, 2002 respectively "on account of license fee and allied charges" the amount due against the respondents was Rs.11,26,376/-. It was for the plaintiff/appellant to prove that the amount due and claimed by them was Rs. 13,048,268/- as claimed in the statement of account'
(Annexure "L"). There is nothing on record to show that at any time upto September, 2002 the appellant/plaintiff sent any notice/letter to the respondents claiming that the amount due against them was Rs. 13,048,268/- or that the respondents had admitted their liabilities to such extent.
Since the plaintiff appellant was unable to substantiate its claim by cogent evidence, therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in decreeing the suit for the lesser amount on the basis of the documents produced by appellant's witness.
17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant was not able to prove its claim that the amount due against the respondents was Rs.1,30,48,268/-. On the contrary, it is evident from the documents produced by the appellant's witness before the trial Court that the amount due against the respondents was Rs.12,41,686/- as calculated by the Revenue Branch of the appellant. Therefore, we find that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and this appeal merits dismissal.
18. Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant on 27.8.2014, we dismissed this appeal with no order as to costs vide order short order of the same date. These are the reasons for our said short order.