1. ' This is an application under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Seeking to produce confirmation letter dated 27-12-1999 issued by H.B.L., Singapore. Contentions, in support of such application are that said letter could not be produced earlier as it was received later in time, it is original letter, confirming that the amount of Rs,60,000 was credited in the account of the respondent on 3-8-1995.
2. ' In my humble opinion provision of Order 41, rule 27 cannot be invoked at the revisional stage, only question relating to jurisdictional error committed by Court below are the relevant consideration.
3. Evidence and additional evidence could only be produced under given circumstances before trial and Appellate Court, additional evidence cannot be allowed mechanically. It is not the case of the appellant that the evidence produced by the appellant was not considered or he was shunted from producing any evidence, application for additional evidence at revisional stage is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Now I advert to the merit of main case.
4. ' This revision arises out of a concurrent judgment and decree passed by two Courts below 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi, South, in Civil Appeal No, 190 of 1999, dated 2-10- 1999, maintained the judgment and decree dated 26-8-1999 and 30- 8-1999 respectively passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, dismissing the Suit No,655 of 198 filed by the appellant.
5. ' Facts in brief are that the parties were married in 1970, the appellant who was/is residing at Singapore, in February, 1995 was served with a notice of Family Suit No,359 of 1994 for dissolution of marriage filed by the present respondent. It is the case of the appellant that he immediately contracted the respondent to appraise himself of the situation but he was satisfied by the respondent that she will not pursue the matter and will withdraw the same. Plaintiff further claimed that in July, 1995 on the respondent's desire, he remitted a sum of Rs,60,000 as a loan, later on he learnt that the respondent had obtained Khula' on 30-4-1995, as such he demanded refund consequently he filed the suit on 25-7-1998. Matter proceeded ex parte, however, learned trial Court was not satisfied with the case set up by the appellant dismissed the suit. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi. Who maintained the dismissal order as referred to above. Learned counsel contended that the matter had proceeded ex parte before the Court below, learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were obliged to believe the version given by the appellant and ought to have decreed the suit. According to him there was nothing on record in rebuttal conclusively proving the case of the appellant according to the learned counsel the judgment of both the Courts below are based on non-appreciation of evidence produced by the appellant which had gone unrebutted in support of his contention he has relied upon large number of cases including Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Pannah (PLD 1994 SC 162), Evacuee Trust Property Board through Assistant Director, Evacuee Trust Properties, Gujrat v.
6. Muhammad Siddique alias Bandoo and others (1995 SCM R 1748), Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others (1991 SCM R 496), Jan Muhammad Khan v. Shah Mir Hussain and others (1985 SCM R 2029), Aziz Ahmed and others v. Mst. Hajran Bibi and another (1987 SCM R 527) and Makhmad and another v. Shadi Khan through his Legal Heirs (1986 SCM R 1018).
7. ' I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. ' On the own showing of the appellant that the marriage was dissolved on 30-4-1995 in a Family Suit No,350 1994 by way of Khula'. It is highly improbable that a person who had received a notice of dissolution of marriage still lends of sum of Rs,60,000 to his ex-wife. The observation of the learned trial Court to the effect that it does not appeal to one's mind that respondent after having obtaining the decree of Khula' may ask for a loan from her ex-husband after about (3) three months of dissolution of her marriage. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the address given in the plaint does not correspond to the address shown in the bank certificate produced alongwith plaint.
9. ' I have also noted that not only address shown in the bank certificate but also in a family suit filed by the respondent shows her address to be of Gulshan-e-Iqbal whereas, the suit, appeal and the instant revision shows her address of Defence Housing Authority, bailiff report in this case shows that no person resides at the address shown by the appellant even the postal certificate shows that no person resides at the address shown in the title of the revision neither before trial Court, Appellate Court nor, in this Court. Appellant made any effort to have the respondent served at the address given in the bank certificate or the address reflected in a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent such conduct indeed rings bell of caution and, Courts while passing any ex parte judgment or decree against the absenting party are expected to exercise great caution, as it is not very uncommon in this morally deteriorating society to obtain orders by misrepresentation, and suppression. In this case, both the Courts below exercised such caution and care. Contention of the learned counsel that revisional Court has every jurisdiction to correct error on the face of record and since the statement and ex parte proof filed by the appellant had gone unrebutted, the learned Courts below ought to have decree the suit as the claim in suit had gone unrebutted, Contention is wholly misconceived, the plaintiff in order to succeed in a case has to stand on his own legs and net to rely on the weakness of the other side. In ex parte proceedings as discussed above the Courts are cautious and careful, while taking into consideration the claim put forward by a party and evidence adduced in support of such claim. Courts of law are not expected to pronounce judgment and decree merely because a party to the proceedings has remained absent or for that matter ex parte. One cannot rule out the possibility of malicious and ill-founded claim as it is not very uncommon, as observed by the Courts below that the process of Court are abused to vindicate personal ego. It does not appeal to common sense that a husband may lend money to his wife, and moreso it does not appeal to mind that a wife who had sought a decree of dissolution by way of Khula' after the dissolution of marriage may borrow any amount from a person against whom she harbours hatred on account of torture, lack of mutual trust and love and that too from a person who had levelled allegations of adultery against her besides non- maintenance and keeping away since many years such allegations made in suit for dissolution of marriage, were neither denied nor the appellant made any effort to-have the decree of Khula' recalled/set aside even after he learnt about the same, are the circumstances that casts serious doubt on the veracity of plaintiff's claim.
10. ' There is no cavil to the proposition propounded by Mr. Anwer that the revisional Court has jurisdiction to correct the, error resultantly from non-reading, misreading of evidence or where the learned Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. In support he cited large number of cases including the cases referred to above. Learned counsel was not able to point out any error in exercise of such jurisdiction by both the Courts below. Appellate Court observation, that suit appears to have been filed to take revenge from the respondent for obtaining Khula' from the Court of law cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is further strange to note that the alleged amount on the own showing of the appellant was remitted on 1-8-1995 as per Annexure 'A' to the plaint and the suit was filed on 25-7-1998 merely (6) six days short of limitation. It is not established from record that such amount was a loan. In case where two views are possible on the basis of evidence/material placed before the Courts below the revisional Court or for that matter even, the Appellate Court does no interfere with such finding of fact and substitutes its own opinion without there being any compelling reasons for the same.
11. ' Finding no merits in this revision application. For the foregoing reasons same was dismissed by a short order, dated 1-10-2001.