MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.-This judgment will dispose of C.R.374-D/88 and the connected C.R.1077-D/88 in which common questions of law and fact are involved. In C.R.374-D/88, Mst Ghulam Fatima, respondent and in the connected C..1077-D/88, she is the petitioner.
2. Mst Ghulam Fatima, respondent, had filed a Suit for recovery of Rs.23.000/-, being value of the golden ornaments weighing 10 tolas. The said ornaments were originally given to her by the petitioner by way of dower. The respondent claimed that the ornaments were snatched by Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner, when he finally turned her out of the house before institution of the suit. The trial Court accepted the respondent's claim and passed a decree in her favour on 1.12.1986 for a sum of Rs.23,000/-. The petitioner's appeal was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, on 2.12.1987, who reduced the decretal amount to Rs.17,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for Mst Ghulam Fatima urged that the trial Court had rightly passed the decree for a sum of Rs.23,000/- and that there was no justification to reduce the decretal amount to Rs.17,000/- only. The learned counsel for Abdul Ghaffar controverted the very claim of Mst Ghulam Fatima and submitted that she was not entitled to the grant of the decree, particularly when her suit was time barred. According to the learned counsel, Mst Ghulam Fatima was living separately from her husband for the last 7/8 years before the institution of the suit. In this connection, he referred to the statement of Muhammad Hussain P.W.2 who had stated that the spouses were married 10/11 years ago and that Mst Ghulam Fatima lived with her husband for 3/4 years only. Hence, the suit was filed beyond a period of three years after accrual of cause of action and merited dismissal under section 3 of the Limitation Act.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused material on the record. True, ordinarily, the question of limitation which is a mixed question of law and fact, ought to be raised in the Courts below. However, in cases in which no inquiry into the facts is required, the question of limitation may be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal or revision before this court. The petitioner was allowed to raise this question on the basis of the facts borne out from the record. Mst Ghulam Fatima instituted the suit on 2.6.1983, stating therein that she was paid her dower amount at the time of her marriage on 19.5.1977 in the shape of golden ornaments. This fact was duly mentioned in the Nikahnama and otherwise admitted by Abdul Ghaffar, who appeared as D.W3 in the trial Court. She further stated in para 5 of the plaint that the suit filed by Abdul Ghaffar for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Family Court holding in the judgment that Abdul Ghaffar had snatched the petitioner's ornaments. In para 7, she stated that cause of action accrued to her when her ornaments were snatched by Abdul Ghaffar.
While appearing in the trial court as P.W.3, Mst Ghulam Fatima stated on 28.4.1985 that she was living separately from her husband for the last four years. Meaning thereby that she turned out of the house somewhere in the end of April, 1981. P.W.2 Muhammad Hussain stated that about 2 or 2 years ago, the parties had a quarrel and the plaintiff, Mst Ghulam Fatima was turned out of the house after snatching her ornaments. It was not suggested either to Muhammad Hussain PW2 or Mst. Ghulam Fatima PW3 that the plaintiff was living separately from her husband for more than three years before the institution of the suit. Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner tried to set up the case that Mst. Ghulam Fatima initially lived in his house for a period of six months and thereafter she went to the house of her parents and took away the ornaments with her. He admitted that on the asking of elders of the family she had been reconciling with the petitioner. He did not specifically state as to when the last separation had taken place. Ibrahim DW2 also admitted that Mst. Ghulam Fatima came over to the house of Abdul Ghaffar for 2/4 times. As the petitioner and his witnesses no where specified the date since when the parties were living separately, the evidence of Mst. Ghulam Fatima that she was living separately for the last four years (since before 28.4.1985, when she made the statement in the court) which was not challenged in cross-examination, will have to be accepted as correct. Thus the suit instituted on 2.6.1983 was clearly within time.
5. As regards the merits of the case suffice it to say that the golden ornaments were given to Mst Ghulam Fatima, respondent, in lieu of her dower at the time of marriage. Both the Courts have perused the evidence on the record and concurrently held that the ornaments were snatched by Abdul Ghaffar and that he was liable to pay the price of the same to Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The learned counsel for Abdul Ghaffar has not been able to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the courts below so as to justify exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As regards the reduction of the decretal amount by the appellate Court from Rs 23,000/-to Rs 17,000/-, apparently, it seems to be arbitrary. The appellate Court ought to have given reasons for reducing the decretal amount to Rs 17,000/-. However, if the case is remanded for this shortcoming alone, this would give rise to another round of litigation causing financial loss and hardship to the parties. The reason for the reduction of the decretal amount is, otherwise decipherable from a careful reading of the pleadings as well as the evidence of the parties. The plaintiff, Mst Ghulam Fatima, had not led any evidence regarding the price of gold prevailing at the time of marriage between the parties and at the time of institution of the suit. She did not specify the amount of dower as was originally fixed. Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner, stated the dower amount to be Rs 6000/- in his written statement as well as in the statement made by him in the Court. The said statement was not challenged as being incorrect in the cross-examination. Thus, it is established that the dower amount was only Rs 6000/- which was paid in the shape of golden ornaments to Mst Ghulam Fatima at the time of her marriage. However, she appears to have combined her claim for dower amount as well as claim for the price of the golden ornaments. P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar who appeared on behalf of Mst Ghulam Fatima stated that the present suit was for recovery of the dower amount. Mst Ghulam Fatima stated that she had claimed her dower which was not paid to her. She also denied the suggestion that the dower had been paid to her. Hence, she is proved to have combined her claim for dower with her claim for the price of the golden ornaments in the suit.
As held above, the liability on account of dower was liquidated by its payment in the shape of golden ornaments. Hence, the appellate Court was justified in deducting the amount of Rs 6000/- from the total claim of Rs 23,000/- and reducing the decretal amount to 17,000/-.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I uphold the decision of the learned Additional District Judge and dismiss these revision petitions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.