1. ' The applicant through this civil revision has called in question the judgment dated 31-8-1999 passed by Ilnd Additional District Judge Karachi, East in Civil Appeal No,12 of 1999, whereby he upheld the judgment dated 7-12-1998 passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, East, who had decreed the suit filed by respondent against the applicant for recovery of Rs,770.20, being the value of Jahez/dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage by her parents.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the respondent Dr. Rubina Akhtar was married to applicant on 8- 9-1995 and the dowry was amount was fixed Rs,11,000.
3. ' The spouses could not maintain cordial relations and the respondent could hardly remain for three months with the applicant as his wife and after sometime she was divorced by the applicant.
4. The respondent after separation filed the suit for recovery of Rs,77,020 as the value of Jahez/dowry articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage which were retained by the applicant.
5. The respondent in her plaint for recovery of articles asserted that she was the only child of her parents and soon after marriage, the applicant put pressure upon the respondent to compel her parents for getting one hospital constructed in the name of applicant. The respondent refused to accept the aforesaid demand. The applicant was, therefore, annoyed and in the first week of January, 1996, he left her at the house of her parents. At that time she was conceiving pregnancy of three months. The respondents on 28-1-1996 sent a divorce deed annexed with a Cheque of Rs,11,000 as dower amount. The respondent thereafter sent a legal notice to applicant for the return of her Jahez articles worth Rs,77,020. The said notice was replied to her Advocate wherein he stated that the said articles were taken away by the plaintiff. Hence she filed suit.
6. ' The applicant in his written statement urged that no Jahez articles were given to plaintiff by her parents at the time of her marriage. He further asserted that the respondent has taken away all her belongings, when she left the house of applicant. He raised certain legal pleas and stated that marriage had taken place on 8-9-1995 while the dowry articles were said to be given on 6-10- 1995.The written statement further disclosed that the legal notice given to him by the respondent contained that her household articles may be returned to respondent. The applicant levelled allegations against the respondent that she had taken away the golden ornaments, clothes and other valuable gifts which was presented to her at the time of marriage by her relatives.
7. ' Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the trial Court:--
(1) Whether the dowry articles amounting to Rs,77,020 were given to the plaintiff by her parents at the time of her marriage?
(2) Whether the defendant had failed to return the said articles to the plaintiff in spite of pronouncing divorce to her?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(4) What should the decree be?
8. ' The respondent in order to prove her assertions made in the plaint examined herself.' She produced Nikahnama, Photostat copy of notice, the reply thereof sent by applicant, Photostat copy of list of Jahez articles and the cash memo. Receipts showing the purchase of ornaments.
9. ' The applicant in rebuttal thereof examined himself. He did not produce any document and closed his side.
10. ' It is contended by the learned counsel that the list of dowry articles produced by the, respondent does not bear the signature of applicant. It is submitted that no Jahez articles were given to respondent at the time of her marriage. The legal notice contained, the word household articles and not the Jahez or dowry articles. It is pleaded that the documents produced in the Court were fabricated after the dispute arose between the parties. The said documents cannot be taken into consideration and they are of no legal consequence. The household articles which she had received at the time of marriage were taken away by her and the same cannot be termed to be the Jahez. The judgments passed by the two Courts below are erroneous and have been based upon the wrong assumptions and fabricated documents. The evidence adduced by the parties has not been validly considered and discussed by the two Courts below. Reliance is placed upon The Commissioner and another v. Mian Sher Muhammad 1972 SCM R 295, Jalal Din v. District Judge, Sialkot and 13 others 1983 CLC 1444, Maj. Rashid Beg v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 443, Sigallo Asia Limited and another v. Akbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited and 4 others 2001 CLC 660 and Mst. Aziz Khatoon and 7 others v. Ladharam and 6 others 2001 CLC 867.
11. ' Mr. Mubarak Ahmed learned counsel appearing for respondent mainly relied upon the judgments of two Courts below. He has submitted that the respondent was the only daughter of her parents.
12. She was doctor by profession and the delivery of Jahez has not been denied by the applicant. The only plea taken by him is that the respondent and her mother had taken away the articles with them. Learned counsel further stated that the factual aspect of the case have already been discussed and considered in detail by the two Courts below. Learned counsel for applicant has not raised any legal plea and has not pointed out any jurisdictional defect in the case. He, therefore, prayed that the two concurrent findings do not suffer from any illegality and need no interference.
13. ' The perusal of record shows that respondent was doctor by profession. She married with the applicant and she was admittedly given certain articles by her relatives and parents at the time of her marriage. This fact is not denied by the applicant. The only plea adopted by him was that the said articles were taken away by respondent and her mother. The applicant in para. 7 of his written statement has stated that the dowry articles were taken away by the respondent and her mother.
14. The articles were purchased by the father of respondent. The cash memos. Of such articles have been placed on record. She has examined herself and her evidence remained unshattered. The applicant was examined in Court. He did not state any word to the effect that the cash memo: receipts produced by respondent were false and fabricated. He has admitted that the respondent had given birth to a son out of wedlock, He further replied to a question in cross-examination that it is correct to suggest that he did not pay any maintenance to that child. Learned counsel for applicant has not urged any legal point before me. He wants to get the reappraisal of evidence which has already been examined at length by the two Courts below. Neither any jurisdictional defect has been pointed out nor he alleged non-exercise and irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against the conclusions of factual aspects of the case based on -the' concurrent finding of competent Courts having jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel for applicant failed to 'show that said conclusion were illegal or perverse.
15. ' In this view of the matter the judgments of two Courts below are not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The Civil Revision No,116 of 1999 stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.