' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is Civil First Appeal against the impugned judgment/decree dated 25-10-2013 of the learned Civil Judge Nagar, District Hunza-Nagar, whereby, the learned trial court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs,59898/- instead of decreeing the same throughout. Through appeal in hand, appellant has prayed for passing a decree throughout.
2. Appellant/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No,196/2003 against the respondent/defendant. Through the suit, appellant/plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs,11,82,636/- with interest at the rate of 20% from July 1997 till execution of the decree. Learned trial court framed the following issues:--
1. Whether suit is fit to be dismissed as has wrongly been framed? OPD
2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi for filing the suit? OPD - 3. Whether plaintiff is fit to be rejected as is devoid of any cause of action? OPD
4. Whether principle of estoppel attracts against the suit? OPD
5. Whether suit is time barred? OPD
6. Whether defendant obtained Rs,150,000/- from plaintiff as call deposit and out of the same amount spent Rs,59,000/- for his private expenses and deposited only Rs,91,000/- as call deposit?
OPP
7. Whether defendant in violation of conditions of the agreement spent common amounts in his own expenses after encashing the same, instead of depositing the same in the common account?
OPP
8. Whether the notables of the area comprised of contractors association and Anjuman Hussainia Nagar intervened on 25-04-2000, 27-04-2001 and 10-08-2001 and conducted renditions of amount between the parties and held that defendant is liable to pay the suit amount? OPP
9. Whether in the light of decision of rendition of account dated 10-08-2001 as well as decisions reached prior to the same, plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs,515898/-, Rs,586211/- Rs,54000/-, Rs,94000/-, Rs,8000/- from defendant? OPP
10. Whether plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs,96,000/- from defendant as costs of Rs,250,000/- of compound wall of school after deducting Rs,58,000/-? OPP
11. Whether plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs,300,642/- from defendant as defendant got deducted Rs,501,284/- as commission from the common account on the basis of a false pretext that he paid the same commission? OPP
12. Whether defendant constructed compound wall on his own expenses? OPD
13. Whether decisions between parties about the rendition were incomplete and defective, therefore, are ineffective? OPD
14. Whether decisions dated 25-04-2000 of the contractors association is ineffective because of declaration dated 25-04-2000, which was result of wrong impression and against fact and also because of decision of Anjuman Hussainia Nagar? OPD
15. Whether decision dated 10-08-2001 is incomplete and defective, therefore, is ineffective? OPD
16. Whether defendant paid Rs,94,000/- in the light of decision of Anjuman Hussainia Nagar? OPD
17. Whether defendant was held liable to pay Rs,515898/- which includes the disputed amount of Rs,136,000/- also in the light of last decision dated 10-08-2001? OPP
18. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for? OPP
19. Relief.
3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through material available on file. It is not disputed that appellant/ plaintiff filed Civil Suit No,196/2003 for recovery of Rs,1182636/- from respondent/defendant. Through judgment/decree dated 25-10-2013 learned trial court passed a decree of Rs,59898/- against the respondent/defendant. It is also not disputed that respondent/defendant neither filed any appeal against the said judgment/decree nor have filed an cross objections etc. against the said decree. It is also important to note that learned trial court has given its findings on issues Nos.1 to 5 against the respondent/defendant and the said findings have attained finality, therefore, suit is within time, appellant/plaintiff has locus standi as well as cause of action for the present suit. This conduct of the respondent/defendant shows that parties had entered into the agreement of a common business in the suit project.
4. We have further noted that learned trial court has given its findings on issues Nos.8, 9, 13, 14 and 15 in favour of appellant/ plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant. Yet another very important aspect of the case is that while giving reply to paras Nos.1 to 3, respondent/defendant has admitted almost all the contents of the said paras. Reply to para No,8 of the plaint is also important and amounted to admission in pleadings as respondent/defendant has admitted the contents of the said Dora of the plaint. In para No,8 of the plaint, appellant/plaintiff has averred that Anjuman Hussainia Nagar comprised of three persons gave its decision on 10-08-2001 on the joint consent of the parties. So, the decision dated 10-08-2001 of the said arbitrators attained very importance. Exh.P/5 is the document dated 10-08-2001 and the same has been written with reference to Exh,P/4. Exh.P/4 is comprised of 10 pages and contains the details of the rendition that the said arbitrators have conducted between the parties. The arbitrators referred in Exh.P/5 conducted further proceedings which we find Contained in Exh.P/6. Exh.P/6 is of two parts which the trial, court has marked as Exh.P/6-A. Exh.P/6-A is comprised of two pages. Joint perusal of the said two documents clearly shows that suit amount is outstanding against the respondent/ defendant.
5. We have gone through the pleadings of parties which is obviously very important and wherein respondent/defendant has admitted contents of Paras Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 9 of the plaint, either fully or partly and this fact is sufficient to hold that there was a genuine agreement between the parties for doing common business in implementing the suit project. Joint perusal of admissions in the pleadings and the documentary evidence of appellant/plaintiff, in the shape of documents Exh.P/1 to 'Exh.P/6, shows that appellant/plaintiff has proved the case.
6. Learned trial court has passed the impugned decree without any elaboration to the effect that why the suit is not decreed throughout and why the suit was decreed partly? We do not find any plausible reasoning in the impugned judgment, showing that the attending circumstances and evidence available on record forced the trial court for decreeing the suit partly. We, therefore, allow this appeal and decree the suit throughout. Anyhow, we use the word profit in place of the word interest payable to the appellant/plaintiff at the rate of 20% from July 1997 till completion of the execution proceedings. Impugned decree varied accordingly. Suit of plaintiff decreed throughout with profit at the rate of 20% on the suit amount from July 1997 till execution of decree. Throughout.
Respondent/defendant to bear costs. This file be consigned to record.