ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. Through this Revision Petition the petitioner prayed as under: "It is prayed that in consideration of above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously set-a-side the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.01.2020 passed by Member Majlis-e-Shoora and consequently the judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2019 passed by trial court/Qazi Pasni may kindly be sustained in the interest of justice, airplay and equity.
The Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to pass such other orders as is warranted in the case."
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,02,000/- before the court of Qazi Pasni (trial Court) with the averments that the plaintiff is doing business and also have a ration shop. The defendants are also Fisherman/Nakhuda (captains). The defendant No.1 was debtor of Rs.6,68,000/- of one Fakhar-ud- Deen due to which the defendant No.1 requested he plaintiff for payment of the aforementioned debt amount to said Fakhar-ud-Deen, in lieu whereof he will sell his hunted fish to plaintiff. The plaintiff made payment of Rs.6,68,000/- to said Faldiruddin, whereafter the defendant No.1 used to take ration from the shop of plaintiff. At the time of final calculation, the sum of Rs.852,000/- were outstanding against the defendant No. 1. The defendant No.2 was also Nakhuda of one Sabzal whose Rs.2,10,000/- were payable by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 requested the plaintiff for payment of said amount to the Sabzal and in return agreed to supply his hunted fishes to the plaintiff. The plaintiff mule payment of the aforementioned amount to said Sabzal, whereafter the respondent No.2 used to take cash money, ration etc. from plaintiff and at the time of final calculation Rs.5,30,000/- were outstanding against the respondent No.2. The notable of the area approached the respondent No.2 for payment of the outstanding amount, consequently respondent No.2 paid Rs.80,000/- out of Rs.5,30,000/- whereas Rs.4,50,000/L are still outstanding against the respondent No.2.
3. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by way of filling written statement and subsequently filed batter statement admitted that Rs. 8,52,000/- of plaintiff were outstanding upon him but he returned the money in the shape of boat, net, goat, and different kind of fish with value of Rs.
8,80,470/-, even he paid extra amount of Rs. 28,470/- to the plaintiff.
4. Despite affixation of notice at the house and publication the defendant No.2 did not appear on 18.09.2019, as such he was proceeded against ex-parte.
5. The trial court framed issues. The plaintiff and contesting defendant led evidence. On conclusion of trial the suit was dismissed vide-judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 by the trial court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before Majlis-e-Shoora, Gwadar (appellate Court), which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2022 (impugned judgment and decree) and suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The petitioner being aggrieved, of the impugned judgment and decree preferred the instant revision petition with the prayer as mentioned above.
5. Heard. Perused the record. The perusal of record reveals that the defendant/respondent No.2 has neither filed appeal before the appellate court nor revision petition before this court, meaning thereby the respondent No.2 has accepted the judgment of both the fora below.
6. So far, the defendant No.1/petitioner is concerned, he admitted in Para No.4 of the written statement that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 paid Rs.6,68,000/- to one Fakhruddin on his behalf but stated that whereafter he returned the money in shape of three boats, net etc. The said fact was also admitted by the witnesses of defendant No.1/petitioner. It is settled law that admitted fact need not proof. Under Article 30 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 the admission has been defined; which reads as under:
30. Admission defined. An admission is a statement, or documentary, which suggests any inference as to an fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
7. The party is bound by admission recorded in a suit in which it is filed. It is recognized principle of law that facts admitted need not to be proved. It would be appropriate to reproduce Article 31 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, which reads as 'under:
31. Admission by party to proceedings or his agent, etc. --(1) Statement made by a party to the proceeding, or by an gent to any such party, who the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.
(2) statement made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.
(3) Statements made by-
(a) persons who have any proprietary or pecuxtiary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who made the statement in their character of persons so interested, or
(b) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
8. Admission made in plaint cannot be ignored or lost sight by the court. The pleadings have been defined under Order VI Rule 1, C.P.C. The word pleading, means plaint or written statement. The purpose of pleading is to enable the party to set down their respective claim. The Order VI Rule 2, C.P.C reads as under: 2 Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved, and shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively-Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures.
9. In written statement the defendant must raise by his pleading all, matter, party is bound by his admission in written statement. The admission of defendant in written statement could be used as evidence of conclusive nature. In case of Nazir Ahmad v. M Muzaffar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1639 it was held that "it is well settled principle of law that admitted facts need not to be proved."
10. The petitioner in written statement admitted that debt of plaintiff was lying upon him but stated that he paid/returned the same to plaintiff. In such situation the burden of prove lies on defendant to prove that he has paid the debt amount back to plaintiff. Where a party to the lis wants the court to believe about the existence of certain facts, onus of prove would be on such litigant who asserted the existence of such fact. Though the defendant witnesses stated that that defendant has made payment but none of them stated the date time and year of payment The burden cannot be discharged on such type of vague statement.
11. The revisional jurisdiction of this court is limited. The High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not permitted to re-open or dilate upon the merit of the case, rather confine itself to the law point only or misreading or non-reading of the evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Khan Bahadur Khan v. Khan Malook Khan PLD 2022 SC 482 whereby it has been observed as under: "9. The jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C is to satisfy and reassure that the order is within its jurisdiction; the case is not one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and, in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is restricted to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or if the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or conflicting to the law. Furthermore, the High Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below while exercising power under Section 115, C.P.C. In the case of Atiq-ur-Rehman v.
Muhammad Amin (PLD 2006 SC 309), this Court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have a material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law, but interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction. There is a difference between the misreading, non-sending and misappreciation of evidence, therefore, the scope at the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of Misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law. This Court in the case of Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630) held that the concurrent findings of three courts below on a question of fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity affecting the merits of the case are not open to question at the revisional stage."
In view of above, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.