RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.- This revision is filed to impeach the judgment dated 12.2.1998 passed by Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Mirza, learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, whereby, he dismissed the suit of the revision Petitioner/plaintiff for the recovery of Rs.24,000/- filed against the respondent/defendant. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge which was also dismissed by Mr. Iqtadar-ul-Hassan Bokhari, leamed Addl. District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din vide judgment dated 13.7.1998.
2. It is submitted in the revision petition that both the learned Courts below had mis-read the evidence adduced at the trial. In this connection, it was contended that PW.2 Allah Bakhsh had supported the Petitioner/plaintiff by deposing that an amount of Rs.24,000/- was paid by the plaintiff/petitioner to the respondent/defendant. However, this part of the statement was not taken into account by both the Courts below; that the respondent/defendant failed to rebut the evidence of the Petitioner/plaintiff as he could not produce any person from the village where the transaction had taken place and as such, his sole statement could not be relied upon. Lastly, it was contended that judgment of the Court below suffered from material irregularity and illegality and was not sustainable in the eyes of law; that penal costs were not liable to be paid as directed by the Court below.
3. The facts are that the Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,000/- against the respondent/defendant on the ground that the latter's son namely Muhammad Anwar being residing abroad had promised to get service for the plaintiff/petitioner on the payment of Rs.50,000/- for obtaining visa, etc. The Petitioner/plaintiff allegedly paid Rs.24.000/- in advance, whereas, rest of the amount was to be paid after the visa was obtained. The respondent/defendant, however, failed to honour his promise and also refused to return, the advance received by him as aforesaid. The suit was resisted in the Court below on the ground that there was no such transaction nor the respondent/defendant was known to the Petitioner/plaintiff as claimed in the plaint. It was also contended that the respondent never received the alleged amount nor had promised that he Would manage visa for the Petitioner/plaintiff. Lastly, he contended that his son Muhammad Anwar was not: living abroad as he was residing in Dhok Kariala for the last more than one year and as such there was no question of arranging visa by him for the plaintiff/petitioner. The suit was allegedly filed by the Petitioner/plaintiff in order to harass the respondent/defendant and as such, special costs of Rs.15,000/- were claimed.
4. The learned trial Judge framed the issues on controversial points and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/petitioner was unable to prove his case against the respondent/defendant. In this respect, it was contended that the Petitioner/plaintiff had stated in the plaint that his elder brother Ghulam Qadir was married in village Kothian which was at a distance of 2/3 miles from Dhok Kariala, where the respondent/defendant was residing; that the respondent/defendant was on visiting terms with the relatives of the Petitioner/plaintiff and likewise the Petitioner/plaintiff also met the respondent/defendant on several occasions which led to cordial relationship between the two sides. Taking the advantage of the aforesaid position, the respondent/defendant cheated the Petitioner/plaintiff by extracting Rs.24,000/- from him on the plea that he shall be sent abroad after obtaining visa from Muhammad Anwar i.e. Son of the respondent/defendant. In the evidence led at the trial, the Petitioner/plaintiff admitted during the cross-examination that the defendant/respondent had no relation or connections with him prior to the payment of the aforesaid alleged amount. It was also admitted by the Petitioner/plaintiff that he did not know son of the respondent/defendant namely Anwar. He also admitted that he had gone to Dhok Kariala i.e village of the defendant for the first time. This statement of the Petitioner/plaintiff is in total contrast with his averments made in the plaint wherein he had expressed that he had met the respondent/defendant on several occasions and had also cordial relationship, with him. It appears that truth perforated his lips when confronted with the facts during the cross-examination. He also admitted that he did not obtain any receipt or writing while paying the amount to the respondent/defendant. At the time of payment, Shana son of Sawa and Allah Bakhsh son of Shana were also present. However, Allah Bakhsh son of Shana while appearing as PW.2 did not say so. He deposed during the cross-examination that he had heard that the plaintiff/petitioner had paid Rs.24,000/- to the respondent/defendant. He also added that the payment of Rs.24,000/- was told to him by the plaintiff/petitioner. It, therefore, follows that the amount was not paid in presence of Allah Bakhsh but he had heard about this payment through the plaintiff/petitioner. It js, thus, correctly held concurrently by the learned Courts below that statement of the Petitioner/plaintiff during the trial was contradictory to his averments made in the plaint regarding his connections with the respondent/defendant and also that there was no direct evidence in respect of payment of the amount in question to the respondent/defendant by the Petitioner/plaintiff. In such a situation, there seems to be no mis-reading or non-reading of evidence as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent/defendant entered the witness-box to say that he had never held out any promise to the Petitioner/plaintiff for sending the latter abroad nor he had received Rs. 24,000/- as part payment as claimed in- the plaint. His statement was corroborated by DW.2 who claims to be resident near Dhok Kariala. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that this witness is not resident of Dhok Kariala as according to him he is resident near to that Dhok, and as such he would not considered as reliable witness. This objection has apparently no force because there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not living in the vicinity of Dhok Kariala or that he was stranger to the area. He clearly deposed that there was no dispute between the parties and that a false case was set-up by the Petitioner/plaintiff.
5. In view of my above discussion, I come to an irresistible conclusion that both the Courts below have rightly come to a concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner/plaintiff was unable to prove his case against the respondent/defendant by showing that he had actually made payment of Rs.24,000/-. It has also been correctly found that the case being falsely set-up, defendant ought to be adequately compensated. The costs which were initially awarded as Rs.5000/- to the respondent/defendant wee enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- by the learned Appellate Court on the appeal filed by the Petitioner/plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show that both the Courts below had no jurisdiction to make any order in respect of the aforesaid costs. This being discretionary matter cannot be successfully impeached in the revision petition particularly when the order does not suffer from any patent or latent legal infirmity or material irregularity. The revision petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.