' Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of impugned judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009 passed by learned Additional District judge, chichawatni.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of dowry articles of alternative Rs. 2,40,000/-. The suit was resisted by Respondent No. 2 by filing written statement. The controversy led to the framing of following issues:--
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of dowry Articles as per list annexed with the plaint or alternative Rs. 2,40,000/- as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit and suit to the extent of Defendant No. 2 is triable by the Civil Court Tandlianwala? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(iv) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and defendant is entitled for compensatory costs under Section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD
(v) Relief.
3. The parties led their evidence pro and contra to prove their respective contentions. The suit of the petitioner was partially decreed to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of dowry articles.
Respondent No. 2 filed appeal which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009 and the suit of the petitioner for recovery of dowry articles was dismissed.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that she proved dowry articles through her evidence. The judgment and decree of the appellate Courts suffers from misreading and non- reading of evidence available on the record. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner while appearing as PW-1 in her examination-in- chief has not exhibited the list of dowry articles. Even otherwise lis of dowry articles has not been got exhibited in the statement of any of the witnesses. In her examination-in-chief she has not specifically mentioned the dowry articles which were given to her at the time of marriage.
Statement of DW-2 Mamand who is real brother of the petitioner is of great importance. He stated in his examination-in-chief that few articles of dowry were given to the petitioner. The dowry articles given to the petitioner were received back in presence of the witnesses as petitioner do not want to live with Respondent No. 2 hence, dowry articles were taken back through Panchayat as well as relatives. In this regard Iqrar Nama Exh. D/2 was written. He stated that Iqrar Mama bears his thumb-impression as Exh. D/2/1. Nothing could be brought out in lengthy cross-examination conducted on DW-2. The finding of the learned appellate Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record and there is no illegality with material irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading and non- reading of evidence available on the record. Even in case of judgments at variance the view of the appellate Court shall prevail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error and illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.
7. Sequel to above discussion, this writ petition having no force is dismissed leaving the parties- to bear their own costs.