' A suit for declaration was instituted by petitioner Mst. Afzal Begum on 26-7-1983 before learned Civil Judge Narowal. In obedience to the notice issued by the Court, respondent No,2, Muhammad Mustafa appeared before the Court on 12-9-1983 and on the basis of the statement having been made by him the suit of the petitioner was decreed on the said date. It may be noted that in paragraph No,1 of the plaint it was mentioned that the petitioner was married with the respondent/defendant according to Muslim law in liew of dower amount of Rs,25,000. In the second round of litigation petitioner Mst. Afzal Begum instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,25,000 as dower amount against respondent No,2 before learned Judge Family Court Narowal. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement in the case. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Judge Family Court framed three issues and consequently the suit was decreed on 18-5- 1987. Appeal of the contesting respondent against the said judgment and decree was heard and accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal on 4-1-1988. It was observed by the learned Appellate Court that the petitioner failed to prove that a sum of Rs, 25,000 was fixed as dower amount and the admission in the first round of litigation could not be accepted as conclusive piece of evidence. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is ample evidence available on record to demonstrate that dowerr amount of Rs, 25,000 was fixed by the parties when the marriage between them took place. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Annexure 'A' copy of the plaint, Annexure 'B' statement of respondent No,2 and Annexure 'C' order of the learned Civil Judge Narowal.
2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the oral evidence produced by the petitioner was not worth reliance and as such it was rightly rejected by the learned appellate Court.
He also argues that admission in the first suit cannot hind the parties in the second suit.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record. There is force in contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the first suit filed by the present petitioner shows beyond any shadow of doubt that dower amount was fixed as Rs,25,000 when the Nikah between the parties took place. The whole suit was accepted to be correct by respondent No,2 while making a statement before the trial Court. In this view of the matter the averments in the first suit were accepted to be correct by respondent No,2 as a whole.
He, later on cannot be permitted to lead oral evidence in reply to the everments made in the first suit which stood admitted by him in their entirety. In support of the documentary evidence, Annexures 'A, B and C' petitioner also made a statement before the learned Judge Family Court as P.W.3, wherein she stated categorically that dower amount was fixed as Rs,25,000 and not Rs,32.50.
Specific suggestion was put to the petitioner regarding the amount of dower. It was specifically denied by her that the amount of dower was Rs,32.50 by on the contrary it was Rs,25,000. In my view petitioner proved beyond any shadow of doubt that dower amount was Rs,25,000 and not Rs,32.50. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned Apppellate Court. Even the law laid down in Madan Gopal and others v. Maran Bepari etc. (PLD 1969 SC 617) and Chaudhary Abdul Karim and another v. Ch. Rashiduddin and another (AIR 1931 Oudh 246) has not been followed by the learned Additional District Judge. This being so, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court are declared without lawful authority and of no legal conseququence. Consequently the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court Narowal are restored. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.