ALI BAIG, J.---This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment/order dated 31-8- 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit in Civil 1st Appeal No. 26/2018 whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the present petitioner/defendant by maintaining judgment/decree dated 12-3-2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit No.1.
2. The facts of case shortly stated are that the present respondent/plaintif f instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 160,000/- along with Rs. 1500/-per day as a haltage against the present petitioner/defendant in the Trial Court claiming that the petitioner/defe ndant had bought a vehicle/jeep bearing registration No. DMR 1154 from the plaintif f/ respondent herein vide an agreement dated 27-2-2004. According to agreement the petitioner/defendant, had promised to pay Rs. 40,000/- by 20-3-2004 and remaining amount amounting to Rs.
120,000/- by the month of May 2004 to the present respondent/plaintif f and in default thereof the defendant/petitidner under took to pay Rs. 1500/-per day as a haltage to the present respondent/plaintif f. The plaintif f/respondent demanded the petition er/defendant to pay the aforesaid amount to him but petitioner/defendant has declined to pay the said amount to the plaintif f/present respondent.
3. The present petitioner being defendant in the suit contested the suit by way of filing written statement in the learned Trial Court wherein the petitioner/defendant has raised certain legal objections and has also denied the averments of the plaint on facts as. well.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court has framed the following four issues:-
1. Whether the suit of plaintiff is within time? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 160000/-along with haltage @ Rs. 1500/-per day on account of agreement dated 27-02-2004 from the defendant? OPP
3. Whether the agreement dated 27-02-2004 is forged and fabricated and is liable to be cancelled? OPD
4. Relief?
5. After framing of the aforesaid issues, the learned Trial Court directed the parties to adduce their respective evidence in support of their claims.
6. The plaintif f/respondent has produced two oral witnesses namely Muhammad Raees Khan and Ahmed Mir. The plaintif f/respondent has also produced an agreement Exh P/1 as documentary evidence. The plaintif f/ respondent himself has appeared before the learned Trial Court and got recorded his statement in the Trial Court.
7. Likewise, the petitioner/ defendant has produced one Muhammad Shafa as D.W-1 besides recording of his own statement in the Trial Court and the petitioner/defendant has also produced a Photostat copy of an agreement dated 15.4.2004 but which was not exhibited by the learned Trial Court being unattested document.
8. On conclusion of trial the learned Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent/ plaintif f vide judgment/decree dated 12.03.2018. The aforesaid judgment/ decree passed by the learned Trial Court was called in question before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit through a Civil 1st Appeal. The learned 1st Appellate Court has also dismissed the Civil 1st Appeal of the present petitioner/ defendant vide the impugned judgment dated 31-8-2018, hence this civil revision petition.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant contended that the judgment/ decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court are based on gross misreading and non reading of evidence of the parties, thus the impugned judgments of both the Courts below are not tenable and liable to be reversed/set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant further argued that the learned Courts below have failed to apply its judicious thought while passing the impugned judgments/decrees, hence the impugned judgments of Courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside.
10. Conversely , the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintif f defended the impugned judgments passed by the both the Courts below by contending that the learned Trial Court as well as the learn0 1st Appellate Court have rightly decreed the Suit of the respondent/plaintif f after proper appraisal and evaluating of the evidence of both the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintif f further argued that the plaintif f/ respondent has proved his claim by producing reliable oral and documentary evidence in the trial court and even the present petitioner/defendant has categorically admitted in his statement as well as in his cross-examination that he had purchased the disputed vehicle from the plaintif f/respondent herein.
11. I have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is a case of the plaintif f/ respondent that he had sold out a vehicle/ jeep bearing registration No. DMR 1154 to the present petitioner/defendant in consideration of Rs.
160,000/- vide written agreement dated 27-4-2004. As per agreement the defendant/petitioner had to pay Rs.
40,000/- on 20-3-2004 and rest of the amount amounting to Rs. 120,000/- in the month of May, 2004 to the plaintif f/respondent but the defendant/petitioner did not pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintif f on due date on one pretext or the other , thus the plaintif f/respondent had filed suit in the trial Court.
12. From perusal of record it reveals that in order to prove his claim/case, the plaintif f/respondent himself appeared before the learned trial Court and has supported the stance taken by him in the plaint. The plaintif f/respondent had also produced one Mohammad Raees Khan Advocate as PW-1 who is notary public and has attested the sale deed Exh P/1 and Ahmed Mir as PW-2 in the trial court who is marginal witness of agreement Exh P/1. The above said stance of the plaintif f has been supported by PW -1 and 2 above named in toto.
13. On the other hand defendant/ petitioner himself appeared before the learned trial court and got recorded his own statement. The defendant/responden t had denied the claim of the plaintif f/ respondent in his written statement but he has admitted the claim of the plaintif f in his statement recorded before the learned trial court stating that he had purchased the disputed vehicle from the present respondent/plaintif f and he has also admitted that he has not paid cost of vehicle to the present respon dent/plaintif f. The present respondent/pla intiff has successfully proved his claim against the present petitioner/defendant by adducing reliable and cogent oral and documentary evidence in to trial court. Both the courts below have carefully examined, meticulously gone through the record and have reached at just and right conclusion. No convincing arguments have been advance d by the learned counsel for the petitioner to convince the court that both the Courts below have committed any illegality or irregularity while passing to impugned judgments/decrees.
14. From perusal of impugned judgments it shows that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments / decrees after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
15. In the wake of above discussion, I find no justification to interfere in the concu rrent findings recorded by both the Courts below . Consequently this civil revision petition being not maintaina ble stands dismissed and the impugned judgment/decree dated 31-8-2 018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is upheld.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. File