On 17-6-1980 Mst. Shamim Akhtar filed suit for the declaration to the effect that the order dated 22- 8-1979 of Administrator, Municipal Committee, Haroonabad, and order dated 18-5-1980 passed by Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority, Bahawalnagar were void, illegal, without jurisdiction and ineffective on her rights. The suit was resisted whereon 3 issues were framed. The parties led evidence in proof and disproof of the issues. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 27-4-1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Mst Shamim Akhtar filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, who while accepting the appeal decreed the suit of respondent- plaintiff mainly on the ground that the show-cause notice was not served upon the respondent and opportunity of defence was not afforded to her. Furthermore, Controlling Authority had not applied its independent mind to the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case. The operative part of the judgment may be reproduced advantageously:-- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record I feel myself persuaded to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The onus to prove issue No. 2 was o the appellant. She has denied positively to have been served with an notice or to have been provided an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the onus has been shifted to the respondents. It was the duty of the respondents to prove by leading cogent evidence that the appellant was served with a notice or that after her refusal to accept the service, her service was effected by pasting of a copy of the notice on the door of the house of the appellant. The respondents have miserably failed to establish on record that the appellant was ever served or she was afforded an opportunity to join the proceedings taken against her. The order being passed in the absence of the appellant without affording her an opportunity of being heard is, therefore, illegal and not binding on her."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the learned Appellate Court with regard to the non-service of the show-cause notice of the petitioner, an opportunity to defend, suffer from misreading of the evidence, inasmuch as Mukhtar Ahmad has stated as P.W. 2: -- URDU PARAGRAPH3616
3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that from the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad made by him as P.W. 2/D.W. 5, it does not appear' that the show-cause notice relating to the charges for which she has been removed from service, was actually served upon her. Since the issues were framed and the parties had led evidence, the question of onus has become immaterial. The show- cause notice, registered notices which were received back unserved; charge-sheet and the publication through citation, all were in possession of the petitioner Municipal Committee. Yet these documents, for the motive best known to the petitioner, were withheld and not produced in Court.
Since the best evidence i.e. These documents have not been produced, therefore, much importance cannot be attached to the oral statement of Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. 2/D.W.
5. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading, non-reading of material evidence by the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court-was/is Final Court on facts. It has come to the conclusion that show-cause notice was not served on the respondent. This finding does not suffer from misreading, non-reading, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect.
4. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, with the well-reasoned judgment of the Appellate Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
A.A./A-71()/L