TANV1R BASHIR ANSARI, J. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.6.1989 passed by a learned Addl. District )udge, Rahimyarkhan, by which, the appeal of the petitioner \vas dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1989 passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the respondent was upheld.
2. The facts are that a suit for recovery of Rs.7243.50 was filed by the respondent as balance of the cost of construction work done by him for the petitioner. The fact that the respondent did the construction work was admitted by the petitioner. However, it was contended that total cost of work was fixed as Rs. 11,000/- whereas the work already done by the petitioner before entrusting it to the respondent was of the value of Rs. 2344.23. The petitioner also averred that the respondent was also given a Television worth Rs.3450/- and a water cooler worth Rs.1,000/-. According to the petitioner, an excess amount of Rs. 2189/- was received by the respondent which he was liable to refund.
3. The evidence of the parties comprises of the statement of the respondent/plaintiff as PW1 and the statement of the petitioner as his on witness as DW.
1. No documentary evidence was produced. However, the respondent also supported his case by a statement on special oath. In rebuttal, the petitioner refused to make a statement upon such oath in denial.
4. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.1989 decreed the suit of the respondent in the sum of Rs.5500/- with cost.
5. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.6.1989.
While dismissing the appeal, the Iearned Appellate Court found that the petitioner had admitted that he got his house constructed from the respondent and that he had paid Rs. 11,000/- to him in this connection. The petitioner further stated to have given a T.V. And Water Cooler to the respondent in liquidation of the amount due on account of the construction work, It was noticed by the Iearned Appellate Court that a cheque in the sum of Rs.3,000/- was issued by the petitioner to the respondent which was dis-honoured. The contention of the petitioner that the cheque was stolen from the Cheque Book was not believed by the learned Appellate Court.
6. In this Civil Revision, the concurrent findings of fact have been challenged on the ground that the petitioner/defendant was not under a legal obligation to deny the claim of the respondent/plaintiff in terms of Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is contended that no adverse inference would follow from the refusal of the petitioner to deny the claim of a respondent on special oath. It is contended that the findings of both the learned lower Courts to be contrary are without lawful effect.
7. It is tme that no adverse presumption can be drawn upon the refusal to administer special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 198,4. Nonetheless the Iearned Appellate Court relied upon the respective evidence produced by the parties and concurred with the findings of the Iearned Trial Court. The Iearned Appellate Court did not solely rely upon the effect of refusal of the petitioner to take the special oath. The Iearned Appellate Court was also correct in holding that as the suit was not based on a written contract or any receipt, it was the Civil Court which had the jurisdiction to try the suit.
8. Apart from the contention made above, no other point was urged on behalf of the petitioner. No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out. Resultantly, this Civil Revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.