IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUHDRY, J.--- In this petition leave to appeal has been sought against impugned order dated August 19, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby R.S.A. No. 81 of 1999 filed by petitioner was dismissed.
2, Succinctly facts giving rise to instant petition are that Municipal Committee Jalalpur Jattan through its Chairman filed a suit against petitioner for recovery of:-
(i) Rs. 1,22,478/- (being the balance of Cess/Market Fee);
(ii) Rs. 22,303/- (being the income tax due against him) Total: Rs. 1,44, 781/, It was the case of plaintiff/respondent that petitioner had obtained rights for collection-of Cattle Market Fee against total bid of Rs. 7,43,417/- in pursuance of-an agreement duly executed between the parties on August 3rd, 1985. Towards his liability he paid Rs. 6,20,939/, However, the balance, break up whereof has been given hereinabove, being not paid, therefore, suit for recovery of outstanding amount was brought against him.
3. The suit was contested by petitioner inter alia on the legal as well as factual grounds including the genuinity of the agreement concerning to the obtaining of lease hold rights to collect the market fee. Learned Trial Court framed issues arising out of pleadings of the parties including the one 'whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,44,781/- from -the-defendant as stated in the plaint. Parties led evidence pro and contra to substantiate their respective claims. It may be noted that the agreement dated 3rd August, 1985 alongwith statement of account was brought on record as Exs.P/1 and P/2. Ultimately Trial Court concluded that plaintiff/respondent is entitled for the decree claimed. Petitioner did not concede to judgment/decree as such lee preferred appeal which came up for hearing before Additional District Judge, Gujrat who dismissed the same on July 19, 1999. Subsequent thereto Second Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before learned Highs Court which too met the same fate as it was dismissed vide impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has never entered into an agreement with the plaintiff/respondent to collect the market fee and the agreement dated August-3rd, 1985 has been forged as it does not bear his thumb impression. He further stated that actually this - document has not been proved on record, although to verify whether' it bears thumb impression of the petitioner a report was, called for from handwriting expert but its ascribe was not summoned to prove the contents of his report. He stated that under the circumstances when the respondent has failed to discharge the onus to prove the contents' of the document, the petitioner cannot be held liable to satisfy the claim of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 1,44,781/-. Learned counsel further canvassed that having been left with no option an application was tiled by the petitioner before the High Court seeking permission to, produce hand-writing expert to prove that the document/agreement dated 3rd August, 1985 is forged but his request was also turned down without assigning any reason.
5. We have heard the learned. Counsel and have also gone through the available record anxiously.
The most important aspect of this case. Is that statedly the petitioner had obtained lease-hold rights to collect market fee being the highest bidder of Rs. 7,43.417/- for, a period of 11 months.
Commencing from, 1st August, 1985 to 30th June, 1986. Out of which he had deposited Rs.
6,20,939/- as per the statement of account Ex. P/2. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner did not agree that this . Amount was deposited by him but it is not understandable as to how a considerable huge amount can be deposited by some one else in his favour. On our query learned counsel could not answer as to how this amount has been shown in his credit by the. Chairman Municipal Committee. He could not satisfactorily answer except saying that probably the staff of.
Manicipal Committee have shown this amount in his credit. We are not inclined to agree with his this contention solely for the reason that the petitioner could not remain ignorant that a' huge amount has teen deposited on his behalf with the Municipal Committee. If we were to accept that this amount has been deposited by the petitioner towards the market fee then we- feel no hesitation in holding that liability to this extent has been discharged by the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement which was executed between the parties i.e. The petitioner and Chairman Municipal Committee Jalalpur Jattan on 3rd August, 1985. As such legitimately he cannot deny the responsibility of payrment.Of balance amount of Rs. 1,22,478/- towards the market fee and Rs.
22,303/- towards the income. It is also to be seen that the respondent/plaintiff based its claim on the agreement dated 3rd August, 1985 Ex.P/1 which has been brought on record but its admissibility was objected to by the petitioner as it was he who asserted that .The document was not executed by him meaning thereby that he takes upon himself the responsibility to prove the assertion so put forth by him .In view of th principle laid down under Article 119 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Thus we are inclined to hold that initial burden to produce the document in Court was discharged by the respondent and its contents were also proved to the extent that out of the total liability major part to the extent of Rs. 6,20,939/- has been paid by the petitioner as per the statement of account Ex. P/2, therefore, the petitioner should have proved that the stand so taken by the respondent is incorrect.
6. Now turning towards the question as to whether the learned High Court was justified in not allowing opportunity to petitioner to produce additional evidence, suffice it to observe that the Court seized with the matter can consider only such plea if in its opinion it is just and proper for the disposal of the matter finally. However, permission for leading additional evidence cannot be granted to fill up the lacunas. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned High "Court was right in refusing to allow additional evidence.
7. As it has been noted hereinabove that learned High Court and the forums subordinate to it i.e. Appellate and Trial Courts have given concurrent finding of facts and no case of misreading or misapprehension of evidence has been made out nor it has been pointed out that any point of general public importance is involved,. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts reached by the Courts below.
8. In view of what has been stated above we see no force in the petition. Consequently the petition is dismissed and leave is refused.