This second appeal arising from a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,600 is directed against judgment 23-9-1972 passed by learned District Judge, Sheikhupura by which appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 9-4-1971 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura through which the said suit of the respondent was decreed, has been dismissed.
2. The respondent supplied rice to the appellant at Narang Mandi under the scheme of Government approved for the year 1967-68, according to which 8.75% cut in the supplied Stock of Paddy Rice was agreed to be given which was to be deducted from the price of the rice due to the respondent.
3. The appellant subsequently raised the deduction of cut from 8.75 per cent. to 25.20 per cent. and on the said basis as also on the basis of Super Inspection Rs.2,600 was withheld from the amount due to the respondent on account of price of the rice supplied by him.
4. This act of the appellant was challenged by the respondent in the instant suit who prayed for a decree for the recovery of the said amount of Rs.2,600.
5 The learned trial Court after recording evidence on the issues framed held that the appellant was not vested with right to withhold the said amount as the rise in the rates of deduction or cut was made arbitrarily and was not legal. Through judgment dated 9-4-1971 the suit was decreed. This judgment and decree was challenged in appeal before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura by the appellant which has been dismissed through judgment and decree dated 23-9-1972.
6. Mian Abdus Sattar Najam. learned Advocate-General for the appellant has taken me through the evidence on the record which has been closely examined. Admittedly according to the original scheme it was agreed that cut or deduction to the extent of 8.75 per cent could be made. The subsequent amendment to raise the rate of cut of 25.20% was without notice to the respondent, providing him opportunity of hearing. The amount of Rs2,600 was withheld from the amount which was due from the respondent for the price of rice supplied by him on the basis of super inspection allegedly conducted which too was behind the back of the respondent. Even after conducting this Super inspection the respondent was not issued any notice to explain his position or to prove that the result of the Super Inspection was not correct.
7. The judgments passed by both the Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appellant, was not vested with any right to raise the f1 rate of cut without providing opportunity to the respondent/supplier.
8. The appeal for the foregoing reasons, is dismissed with no order as to costs.