SHAHID BILAL HASSAN-J: This single judgment will decide the captioned revision petition as well as connected C.R.No.13114 of 2022, as both are interconnected as well as one and the same judgments and decrees have been called into question.
2. Succinctly, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,076,008/- alongwith interest and costs of damages against the present petitioner, which was duly contested by the petitioner. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the parties in pro and contra was recorded. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.09.2021 partially decreed the suit excluding the claim of gratuity amounting to Rs.160,000/- and compensation amount Rs.97,819/-. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal, which was partially accepted and amount of cheque worth Rs.294,720/- was also excluded. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the instant revision petition whereas the respondent feeling dissatisfied filed the connected C.R.No.13114 of 2022.
3. Heard.
4. After going through the plaint, presented by the respondent, it seems necessary to refer the relevant provisions of law governing the presentation of plaint and to state that what kind of particulars and details are necessary to be pleaded. In this regard, Order VII, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are relevant, which are reproduced infra:- '1. Particulars to be contained in plaint. The plaint shall contain the following particulars--
(a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought;
(b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;
(c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained;
(d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect;
(e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;
(f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction;
(g) the relief which the plaintiff claims;
(h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished; and
(i) a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of Court-fees, so far as the case admits.
2. In money suits. Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed: But where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, or for a amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or for movable in the possession of the defendant, or for debts of which the value he cannot, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, estimate, the plaint shall state approximately the amount or value sued for.'
However, the respondent/plaintiff has not given any detail of his claim and only accumulatively claimed Rs.10,76,008/-. The relevant paragraph is 10 of the plaint, which is reproduced as under:- '10. That the amount claimed by the plaintiff regarding outstanding eligible/agreed misc. allowance/expenses, gratuity, amounting to Rs.10,76,008/- including compensation of 10% are correct and genuine.'
The same must have been bifurcated and categorized as to what amount under which head is being claimed by the respondent; meaning thereby the pleadings of the respondent are ambiguous. Moreover, the respondent submitted disputed documents through his counsel, which otherwise must have been brought on record through their author or in statements of witnesses having nexus with such documents. In judgment reported as Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd.
Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715), the Apex Court of the country by reiterating and re-affirming its view rendered in judgments reported as Manzoor Hussain v. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 SC 749) and Hameeda Begum v. Irshad Begum (2007 SCMR 996), has invariably held that:- 'This Court has time and again emphasized that the disputed documents cannot be tendered in evidence in statement of the counsel for a party, because such procedure deprives the opposing party to test the authenticity of those documents by exercising his right of cross-examination.'
A learned Division Bench of this Court has also rendered a judgment on this point, reported as Muhammad Hussain and another v. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan and others (2021 YLR 2310-Lahore).
5. In addition to the above, the documents furnished in evidence through statement of learned counsel for the respondent are also beyond the documents, presented and relied upon while submitting forms as per mandate of Order VII, Rule 14 and Order XIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the same must not have been considered and relied upon by the learned Courts below.
6. Besides, the respondent could not plead as to which car number was in his utilization because no registration number, chasis number was pleaded by him; as against this the D.W.1 categorically deposed during cross examination that Car bearing No.LE-4564 Honda City and Mobile SIM Card No.03028407294 was provided to the respondent during his appointment and duty and all the expenses of the car including petrol were borne by the company. In this view of the matter, the findings of the learned appellate Court to exclude Rs.294,720/- (Ex.P31) are based on sound reasoning. However, both the learned courts below have failed to consider the above discussed shortcomings and lacking of details with respect to claim of the respondent while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, because after excluding the documents rendered in the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, nothing except oral deposition remain in field, which is not sufficient to prove the case of the respondent.
7. In view of the above, this Court observes that the learned Courts below have failed to exercise vested jurisdiction as per mandate of law and have failed to construe law on the subject in a judicious manner, which has resulted in commission of material illegality and irregularity. As such, the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be allowed to hold field further. Resultantly, the revision petition bearing No.25850 of 2022 titled "M/s Gulistan Group of Companies v. Mr. Waseem Javed Khand" is allowed, impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and suit of the respondent stands dismissed; consequent whereof the connected C.R.No.13114 of 2022, filed by the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.