' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 27-3-2001, delivered in Civil Revision No,97 of 1989, whereby revision filed by the respondents was allowed and the judgment/decree dated 23-4-1989 passed by the First Appellate Court was set aside and the judgment/decree of the trial Court dated 31-7-1988, was restored.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the contract of respondent No,1 for construction of building of High School, Kamrial, was granted on 16-2-1982. After completion of the building the same was handed over to the petitioners and the security deposited by respondent No,1 was withheld mainly on the ground that there were some defects in the work done by respondent No,1, which were required to be removed at his risk and cost according to the contract.
3. Respondent No,1 feeling aggrieved by withholding of his security by the present petitioners, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the petitioners were not entitled to effect recovery of any amount from him pertaining to the work carried out by him. The suit was contested by the petitioners before the trial Court on the plea that respondent No,1 did not complete construction and further that work carried out by him was of substandard. Respondent No,1 also filed a separate statement pertaining to the removal of defects in the work. The trial Court keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The judgment/decree of the trial Court was agitated before the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, who allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court. Thereafter, respondent No,1 approached the learned High Court by filing revision petition, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 27-3-2001. Hence, this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioners, who, inter alia, contended that the judgment of the learned High Court is not sustainable and that Exh.D.W.4/G was not properly brought on record and the same was not required to be referred and considered by the Appellate Court; that the work so carried on by respondent No,1 was not up to the mark, terms and conditions of the contract; and that First Appellate Court rightly excluded Exh.P1 from consideration and disbelieved the same.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely examined the available record. It is borne out from the record that completion certificate Exh.P1 was also placed on record by the petitioner as Exh.D.W.4/G in the statement of D.W.4 and the then Sub- Divisional Officer Building of Fateh Jang in unequivocal terms stated on oath that the completion certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer Building. Further perusal of the documents Exh.P1 and D.W.4/G show that the completion certificate was also relied upon by both the parties, but it is strange to note that Additional District Judge/Appellate Court, without carefully examining Exh.D.W.4/G, observed that Exh.P1 was a false document. The document clearly shows that the work was carried on within the prescribed period in terms of agreement and the respondent was also entitled to take back the security amount deposited by him. Moreover, the petitioner during trial did not question the correctness of Exh.D.4/G, which was produced through S.D.O., who was examined as Exh.D.W.4, and at the time of the producing of the document no objection on behalf of the petitioner was raised. Furthermore, petitioners also conceded to the correctness of Exh.P1.
6. During hearing of this petition, it was brought to our notice that Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,2755 of 2001 filed by the present petitioners against the present respondents on the same facts, circumstances and legal plan was also dismissed by another Bench of this Court on 10-9-2002.
7. We have, given our anxious thought and careful perusal of the material available on record. We find that the learned Judge in Chambers had considered the ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the parties very minutely and there is no misreading and non-reading of the material.
Furthermore, there is no jurisdictional error, or misconstruction of facts and law.
8. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, keeping in view the principle of equity, fair play and justice, we are of the considered opinion that the petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed alongwith the listed application, and leave to appeal declined.