' Briefly stated facts of the case as disclosed in pleadings of the parties are that Mst. Parveen Akhtar respondent was married to the petitioner. At the time of marriage, respondent was given dowry as per list mentioned in the plaint. It is alleged that subsequently, the respondent was turned out of his house by the petitioner alongwith his three daughters and has failed to return the articles of dowry.
Consequently, respondent filed a suit for the recovery of articles of dowry and in the alternative for payment of Rs,17,828 as price thereof. This suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent does not have any cause of action to file suit inasmuch as the articles of dowry are in her possession and further that the petitioner has already filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her.
2. In support of her case, respondent has produced P.W.1 Muhammad Hanif son of Allah Ditta and has herself appeared as P.W.2. She has also produced evidence of Tasawar Hussain P.W.3. As against the above evidence, petitioner has produced D.W.1 Muhammad Bashir, D.W.2 Abdul Rehman and himself has appeared as D.W.3. Besides oral evidence, respondent has produced Exh.
Dl, a receipt reflecting admission made by the brother of the respondent with regard to the return of the articles of dowry. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-4-1991 decreed the suit filed by the respondent and granted a decree in her favour for recovery of the payment of Rs,17,828. First appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad vide judgment and decree dated 8-9-1992. It is these two judgments and decree which have been challenged by the defendant-petitioner in this Civil Revision.
3. In support of the revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the two Courts below have failed to read material portion of Exh.D1 which is a receipt and which contains admission on the part of the brother of the respondent which is to the effect that the articles of dowry were returned during the pendency of a criminal case. Learned counsel argued that it is a case of misreading/non-reading of evidence and hence both the judgments and decree are without lawful authority.
4. I have gone through the record of the case as well as the evidence produced by the parties with the help of the learned counsel. I have also gone through the contents of the receipt Exh. Dl. It is an admitted fact that the receipt has not been signed by the respondent. Consequently, any admission made therein shall not be binding against her and in fact cannot be used as a piece of evidence against her. Even otherwise, admissions made and documents executed before the Police Authorities during the pendency of cirminal proceedings are usually tainted with an element of a coercion and it cannot be said that such documents are admissions having been made with free mind. Recently their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in various judgments have clearly held that transactions with ladies have to be proved with very cogent evidence particularly when these are transactions of receipts or relinquishments. Reference can be made to a famous case `Ghulam All and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi' reported as PLD 1990 SC 1. In the case in hand, respondent, being a lady and there being no admisison on her part with regard to the recovery of dowry, the so-called admission on the part of her brother is of no avail to the petitioner.
I have gone through the judgments of the two Courts below. They have dealt with these pieces of evidence and it has been held on the basis of cogent evidence that all the articles of dowry were not returned. It has been concurrently held by both the Courts below that the respondent is entitled to the recovery of the articles of dowry and in the alternative for price thereof. No misreading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a revision petition and it cannot be said that the two Courts below have rendered the judgments and decree which can be said to be without lawful authority. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the judgments and decree rendered by the two Courts below. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.