' This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th of September 1972, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, against the appellant for Rs, 31,068.50.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent, Haji Khuda Bakhsh, who deals in furniture and woodwork, was asked by the appellant Mr. Abdul All Khan then Principal of Aitcheson College, Lahore, to handle the work as frames of windows, doors and other wooden material to be used in his bungalow at Charsada, District Peshawar. According to the respondent the work was agreed to be carried out by him according to the quotations for each and every item as mentioned in Exh. P.
10, dated 15-8.196 which is duly signed by the appellant. So far as the signatures on the said document are concerned the same are admitted by the appellant but according to him the quotations as mentioned therein were not agreed to by him and rather on the contrary it was agreed that the respondent would carry out his work according to the labour rates prevalent at that time.
3. According to the respondent the value of his work done by him including the price of wood purchased by him was Rs, 71,068,50, as mentioned in the bill dated 2-2-1968, attached as Schedule 'A' with the plaint while the appellant paid him only Rs, 40,000.00 by means of two cheques. As such according to him the balance of Rs, 31,068.50 was yet to be paid to him. According to him he also supplied to the appellant furniture worth Rs, 11,248.00 which amount was also not paid to him. He, therefore, filed a civil suit for the recovery of total amount of Rs, 42,316.50 against the appellant. His claim for Rs, 11,248 was rejected by the learned trial Court and as mentioned above, the suit was decreed only for Rs, 31,068.50. The appellant has now come up to the High Court and has challenged the validity of the impugned judgment and decree passed against him.
4. Issue No, 1 as to whether Rs, 42,316.50 was due to the respondent-plaintiff from the appellant was the main issue for the decision of the suit. So far as the present appeal is concerned it is to be found out as to whether the finding given by the learned trial Court on issue No, 1 that the work was done by the respondent according to the quotations as mentioned in Exh. P. 10 and not according to the labour rates, is correct or not. In order to prove his case the respondent-plaintiff has examined 7 witnesses including himself while the defendant has examined 3 D. Ws. In addition to himself. Nothing has been brought on record I the form of documentary evidence that the woodwork was done by the respondent on labour rates. D. W. 1 who claims to be a contractor and who is alleged to have also submitted his quotations aide Exh. D. 1 has stated that after he was not called upon to resume the work of the appellant, according to his quotations, he was told on inquiry that the respondent had been entrusted the said work on labour rates. It is clear from his statement that such information was not given to him by the respondent himself nor he has alleged to be so in his statement. He has also not stated as to who had given him such information.
In the circumstances it is not possible to believe his testimony. The most material witness produced by the appellant is D. W. 3, Sher Gul who is admitted by him to be present on the spot being responsible for the supervision of the work done by the respondent. He has admitted in cross- examination that the wood was purchased by the respondent who used to prepare the frames of the doors, windows and other material out of the same at Lahore and then used to bring all that by trucks to Charsada. He has also admitted the execution of his letter sent by him to the respondent Exh. P. 14, acknowledging therein that the work entrusted to the respondent had been completed by him quite satisfactorily and no work remained to be done by him. The fact that the wood was purchased by the respondent himself has also been admitted by the appellant in his statement.
When it admitted on record that the entire wood and other necessary material was purchased by the respondent himself and there being no evidence to show that he was paid the price of such material by the appellant, it can be safely concluded that work was agreed to be done according to the quotations as mentioned in Exh. P. 10 and not according to the labour rates. The contention that the amount of Rs, 40,000 was paid to the respondent as advance for the purchase of wood does not appear to be correct as wood worth so much amount was not required for the construction of the house in question nor the said amount appears to be the amount liable to be paid to the respondent, according to the labour rates about which no details whatsoever have been provided by the appellant. It is interesting to notice that in spite of the fact that the respondent was liable to be paid according to the labour rates prevailing at the relevant time, nothing has been brought on record to show as to what were the labour rates for the work done at the time in question. It has been contended that Exh. P. 10 containing the rates according to which the respondent agreed to work, was signed by the appellant in acknowledgment of receipt of copy thereof only and according to the appellant putting his signature thereon did not mean that he had accepted the said quotations. If it is so then sufficient material should have been brought on record to show that the work was entrusted to the respondent to be done by him on labour rates.
There is no doubt that onus of issue No, 1 is placed upon the respondent but I am of the view that he has produced sufficient evidence to discharge the same. The fact that the entire wood was purchased by the respondent along with other necessary material is amply proved on record. The fact that frames of the doors, windows and other wooden material after having been prepared at Lahore were used to be sent to Charsada for the purpose of being fitted there has been admitted by D. Ws. 2 and 3. The appellant has also not produced any evidence to show that the material other than the wood was purchased by him. The mere oral statement on the part of his one or two witnesses in this behalf cannot be relied upon.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that even if it is accepted to be correct for arguments sake only that the wood work was to be done by the respondent on quotations rates, as mentioned in Exh. P. 10, there is nothing on record to show that the work entrusted to him was completed and as such he was liable to be paid the amount claimed by him. I am afraid this contention has no force in the circumstances of the case. The testimony of D. W. 3, Sher Gul proves that entire work entrusted to the respondent was done by him quite satisfactorily. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the respondent has not proved his case for completing the work entrusted to him. He has examined the persons who used to carry the wooden frames etc. To Charsada for the purpose of fitting them there. He has also produced documentary evidence to show that the wood was purchased by him from such and such shop. This evidence stands proved without any rebuttal. If the work had not been carried out according to the satisfaction of the appellant he would have lodged some protest with the respondent. In the absence thereof as well as in view of the discussion made above I am in agreement with the learned trial Court that the work entrusted to the respondent was to be done by him according to the quotation rates as given in Exh. P. 10 and the said work was completed satisfactorily. He has been rightly found to be entitled to the payment of Rs, 31,068.50.
6. There being no force in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed with costs.