On 15-7-1984 the respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,000 against the petitioners and respondent No.2. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are brothers inter se. There was a money dispute between the petitioners on one hand and respondent No.2 on the other, and as per decision of the Punchait the petitioners were to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 to respondent No.2 and that at the behest of the petitioners respondent No. l stood surety for the payment of the said amount. Respondent No. l sought to wriggle out of the said commitment and filed a suit but it was decided on 30-5-1984; that he is in fact liable to pay up the said amount to respondent No.2 as a surety of the petitioners; that the petitioners were called upon to pay the said amount but they are adamant. The petitioners in their written statement denied the said allegations. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 29-9-1986. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 4-2-1987.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No. l had not paid the amount to respondent No. 2 and as such was not entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount. Further contends that the learned trial Court wrongly relied on the copies of the execution proceedings filed after the close of evidence of respondent No. 1. No one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the record of the learned trial Court which had been summoned. I find that Khushi Muhammad, P. W.1 stated that he is the Chairman of Zakat and Ushar Committee of the area; that there was a dispute amongst the petitioners and respondent No.2 and that he was one of the arbitrators and it was decided that the petitioners have to pay Rs.5,000 to respondent No.2; that the petitioners stated that they did not have the money at the moment and that a surety be accepted; that respondent No. l stood surety but later on the petitioners refused to pay the money to respondent No.2. It was categorically stated by this witness that respondent No. l had paid money to respondent No.2 in execution proceedings in the Court of Mr. Khalid Mehmood Cheema, Civil Judge. This witness was cross-examined but no suggestion was given to him regarding the statement that respondent No.1 had paid the amount to respondent No.2 in the said Court. P.W.2 is Allah Dad.. He also made a statement to similar effect and nothing was suggested to him regarding the statement pertaining to payment by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 in Court.
P.W.3 is respondent No.1 himself. He also stated that the amount was paid partly to the bailiff and partly in the Court. Nothing was suggested to him regarding the said statement. In the background of the said evidence to my mind the learned trial Court has not committed any fault in taking into consideration the certified copies of the execution proceedings which go to show that in execution of the decree the warrant for attachment was issued. Rs.3,000 were paid to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 and duly recorded by the bailiff on the said warrant while the balance amount of Rs.2,000 was paid in Court to the decree-holder on 6-2-1985.
4. To my mind even independently of the said certified copies it stood proved on record that respondent No. l did pay Rs.5,000 to respondent No. 2 as a surety for the petitioners. No ground, therefore, has been made out for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned lower Courts in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs.1,000, and the petitioners shall also pay profit at the rate of Rs.10% per annum w.e.f 6-2-1985 till the final recovery of the suit amount.