' The suit filed by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.24,800 the value of the dowry as well as for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,000 the dower amount was dismissed by the learned trial Court through judgment, dated 13-7-1981. In appeal filed by the respondent the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot decreed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.24,800 as value of articles of dowry whereas for the recovery of the dower' amount of Rs.6,000 the suit was held to be not maintainable before the Civil A Court for which the petitioner was asked to seek remedy from the Family Court.
2. Learned lower Appellate Court after considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 'examined by the respondent and the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 along with the documents produced by both the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent had established that articles of dowry worth Rs.24,800 were given to her in marriage for which on acceptance of appeal a decree has been granted to the respondent for that much amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant argued that court-fee stamp of requisite amount on the memo of appeal before the learned lower appellate Court was not affixed. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued that on the relevant date the plaint and memo of appeal in a suit of which value of subject-matter was less than Rs.25,000 was exempted from payment of court-fee therefore, the memo of appeal so far as it related to the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of articles of dowry valuing Rs.24,800 did not require any court-fee. Regarding the prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,000 as dower amount the same was deemed to have been abandoned and even if it was not so the memo of appeal could be rejected only qua the prayer for the recovery of dower amount of Rs.6,000.
4. The argument of learned counsel for respondent has considerable' force. The memo of appeal regarding recovery of value of articles of dowry amounting to Rs.24,800 did not require court-fee stamp therefore, the judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court granting her decree for recovery of the said amount does not suffer from any illegality on account of non-payment of court-fees.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to persuade me that the finding of fact recorded by learned lower appellate Court suffers from any material irregularity and illegality such as misreading or misconstruction of the evidence produced by the parties.
6. The revision petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. It has been brought to my notice that the stay of the execution of the decree was granted subject to furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner which has been furnished. The execution proceedings initiated by respondent/plaintiff before the learned Executing Court are still pending which were stayed due to an order passed by this Court. The learned Executing Court shall recover the amount from the bank which has furnished the guarantee on behalf of the petitioner and pay the decretal amount to the respondent.
8. Learned counsel' for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition some amount was recovered from the pay of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent says that the same has not been reimbursed to the respondent. The learned Executing Court shall look into this matter and if any amount from the pay of the petitioner has been attached and not yet paid to the decree-holder the same shall be paid back to the petitioner and if the same has been paid to respondent No.1, decree-holder, that much amount shall be deducted and paid to the petitioner.