' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 15-6-1981 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs,16,85,461.50. It was stated in the plaint that the respondent supplied different types of industrial paints for fans to the appellant during the period 18-6-1978 to 28-2-1981 through the manufacturers of the said paints, namely, Berger Paints Pakistan Ltd., Lahore vide invoices attached with the plaint; that paint of the value of Rs,22,35,461.50 was supplied but the appellant made payment of only Rs,5,50,000 and, the said suit amount is still due on the said account and has not been paid despite demand. On 9-2-1982 the appellant filed a written statement objecting to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the said Berger Paints Ltd. Has not been impleaded as a party. On merits it was stated that the appellant never entered into any contract with the respondent for supply for paints. It was also denied that the appellant made any payment to the respondent or that any payment is due. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the sum of Rs,16,85,461.50 is outstanding against the defendant? OPP
(2) Whether this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?
(3) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties?
(4) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. All the said issues were found in favor of the respondents and the suit was decreed as prayed for by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-5-1986.
2. This R.F.A. Was earlier heard by a learned D.B. Of this Court and was allowed vide judgment dated 28-11-1990 and consequently the suit was dismissed. The respondent filed C.A. No,4 of 1991 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 12-5-1992 and the first appeal was remitted back to this Court for a fresh decision. Before proceeding further we deem it proper to record here the salient aspects of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It so happened that the learned 'D.B. Of this Court while deciding the R.F.A. At the earlier occasion was impressed by the fact that a document i,e, list marked 'A' produced by Abdul Latif, P.W.4 in fact relates to an altogether different consignee and goods i,e, M/s. Siddique Paints Gujranwala and not M/s. Ramzan General Stores i,e, the appellant. It was also observed that document Exhs.D.1 to D.8 would be of no avail to the respondent inasmuch as the fact that the appellant in fact had some business dealings in the matter of said paints with the respondent would not lead to the inference that the transactions represented by document Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.76 did take place between the parties. Now it was explained before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of the respondent that in fact two suits were pending simultaneously. One against the present appellant and the other against the said Siddique Paints, Gujranwala and somehow or the other the document which was to be produced in the present case came to be produced in the said connected case and vice versa. A certified copy of the said document was obtained from the said other file and produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was observed that the present appellant had no answer to the said explanation. Thereafter, observations were made which we deem it absolutely proper to reproduce hereunder:- "Two questions arise; one, whether the manner in which this very vital feature in the entire case influenced the High Court in determining the honesty of one or the other party and also the extent to which it influenced them. The other reasoning in the appellate judgment is not such that if above explanation offered from the appellant's side is accepted the remaining impugned judgment would remain intact. The second question is that the learned Judges in the High Court did not, while dealing with the respondent's denial, examine the case from another angle; namely, that the total denial by the respondent of any dealings with the appellant stood negated by the admissions in their own evidence; wherein, it was admitted that invoices Exhs.D.1 to D.8 included the goods mentioned in documents P.1 to P.76 had been dispatched and delivered to the respondent. In this regard the trial Court had observed that the defence witnesses speak against the defendant that he had not received any goods from the plaint or he has no business relation with the plaintiffs'.
This approach by the trial Court is unexceptionable and with respect the High Court reasoning or rebuttal in the impugned judgment in this behalf is not convincing. Therefore, the total denial by the respondent got diluted. The next question arises; whether, in such a situation the case should not have been examined from another angle; namely, that the respondent's total denial not being tenable the parties be afforded further opportunity to help the case to reach the truth. It was felt during the agreements that if this aspect of the case would have been examined further a modified decree might have been passed.
' In the light of the foregoing discussion on above important features of the case, we feel that the appellant be asked to lead additional evidence and put forward explanation before the High Court regarding the discovery, perhaps during the preparation of its judgment, regarding the name of M/s. Siddique Paints, Gujranwala emerging in the list Mark-A. After this evidence, respondent shall be allowed to not only to rebut the same but also to take an alternate plea other than of total denial. In that eventuality we hope there might be yet another chance for the parties to enter into meaningful dialogue for amicable just decision out of Court. We have a feeling that this opportunity is being ignored by the respondent's side without much justification. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded to the High Court for re-hearing of the appeal in the light of the foregoing discussion, remarks and observations. There shall be no order as to costs."
3. In compliance with the directions contained in the said judgment additional evidence of the parties was recorded. Mr. Abdul Qayyum, Advocate appeared as C.W.1 to state that he was representing the respondent in the said two suits which were being tried together. Learned counsel explained that Abdul Latif was examined as P.W.4 and produced a list of invoices (marked as C.W.1./1 in the present file) and though the document was produced in the suit against the appellant, somehow it was attached to the file of the case against Siddique Paint House. The said Advocate further stated that Siddique is the son-in-law of Ramzan. There is nothing in the cross- examination of this witness to derogate from the truth of the said statement. Basil Ahmad son of Khurshid Ahmad appeared as C.W.2 and made a similar statement. In rebuttal Muhammad Ramzan entered the witness-box on 30-4-2002. He has stated that he may be knowifig Khurshid Sons but has no dealing with them; that he had not received any goods from Khurshid Sons against list Mark-A and receipt Exhs.P.1 to P.76 and that he does not owe any money to M/s. Khurshid Sons. This is the examination-in-chief which does not at all rebut the explanation offered by the son of the respondent and his learned counsel in the witness-box. We, therefore, accept the said explanation and will be reading records accordingly. It may further also be pointed out at this very stage that though given an opportunity the appellant has not opted to take the same and has not taken any alternate plea other than to total denial.
4. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salim, Advocate has proceeded to reiterate the position of total denial taken by his client in the written statement and vehemently urges that neither any paints were supplied and there were no dealings between the parties and as such the suit could not have been decreed. Mian Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that documents Exhs.D.1 to D.8 produced by the appellant himself go to belie the said stand having been taken by the appellant and being reiterated by his learned counsel at the Bar today.
5. We have gone through the trial Court's records. We have already referred to the pleadings of the parties in some detail above. Now the case set up by the respondent in the plaint was that the goods were got delivered to the appellant through M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. Vide the several invoices appended with the plaint. Qureshi Abdul Karim appeared as P.W.1 to state that he was employed with the said Berger Paints during the period December, 1968 to 1-3-1984 and that invoice Exhs.P.1 to P.69 were issued by him and bear his signatures. He explained that the invoices attached to the challan were prepared by the Store Incharge and the builty number and the name of the Transport Company is mentioned therein and the name of the consignee is also mentioned. The witness further stated that the respondent was dealer of the said Company and it was on his demand that the goods were supplied to the appellant through Fateh Sons Goods Transport who have their stand in Lahore. Original invoices are sent to the dealer and Exhs.P.1 to P.69 are the said original invoices; that the company did not receive any complaint that the goods have not reached the consignee. In his cross-examination he stated that the invoice is compared with the challan and thereafter he signs the same. He states that challans did not bear the signatures of the appellant because consignment was sent under a double builty and signatures on the challans are not obtained as the goods were sent outside Lahore. Abdul Majeed, Store Supervisor of the said Berger Paints appeared as P.W.2 to prove invoice Exhs.P.70 to P.76 and to state that the goods were sent to the appellant on demand of the respondent through Fateh Sons Goods Transport and that the invoice bears his signatures. Now in cross-examination this witness was asked as to why the name of the appellant has been mentioned in the invoices and the witness responded that since the appellant was the consignee, his name was stated in the invoices. P.W.3 is Basil Ahmad, the Managing Partner of the respondent firm. He stated that goods were sent to the respondent through invoices Exhs.P.1 to P.76 and the Company had been paid by the respondent. He then stated that through Exhs.P.1 to P.76 goods worth Rs,22,35,461.50 were sent and a payment of Rs,5,50,000 was made and the balance is due. In his cross-examination the witness stated that there is no written agreement between the parties. He explained that the amount is due for supplies made during June, 1978 to February, 1981; that since the payment has not been received tax has not been paid. He stated that the appellant made the payment either through bearer cheque or cash. He denied that the invoices are fictitious. Abdul Latif, P.W.4 is the Manager of Fateh Sons Goods Transport Company who proved list Mark-A (presently C.W.1/1) and stated that the goods were delivered and no complaint was received regarding nondelivery. In his cross- examination the witness explained that double builty was prepared to deliver the consignments and the delivery builties were returned back. He denied that such builties are to be signed by the consignee.
6. In rebuttal the appellant produced Muhammad Akbar D.W.1. This witness stated that he is the delivery clerk in the Office of Fateh Sons Goods Transport Company, Gujrat and knows the appellant and that during his posting no goods were delivered to the appellant from Berger Paints or Khurshid Sons. We may state here that the said Basil Ahmad again entered the witness box on 16-4-1986 to state that he had addressed letter Exh.P.77 to Fateh Sons Goods Transport Company to inquire as to whether D.W.1 is their employee or not and the reply was received through Exh.P.78.
According to this letter no person by the name of the said D.W.1 was working as delivery clerk in the office of the said concern at Gujrat. We also note that it was not suggested to Abdul Latif P.W.4 that the said person has been working as a delivery clerk in the Gujrat office.
7. Now Abdul Majid, Stores 'Supervisor, Berger Paints Pakistan Ltd., Lahore was produced as D.W.2 by the respondent. He produced 8 invoices which were exhibited as Exhs.D.1 to D.8 in the statement of Muhammad Ramzan, respondent (D.W.3). Now this witness states that the said invoices were got issued by the respondent and.Addressed to the appellant at Gujrat and the goods were paid for by the respondent. In cross-examination the witness admitted that the goods were delivered through Fateh Sons Good Transport Company. The witness further admitted that invoices Exhs.P.1 to P.76 were issued by Berger Paints and that these were issued on the demand of the respondent; that the goods were delivered to the appellant and were paid for by the respondent.
8. Strangely enough after the said statement of his own witness, Seth Muhammad Ramzan appeared as D.W.3 and after taking oath proceeded to state that he has never done any business with the respondent-firm. Not only this he proceeded to state that he has never received any supply from Berger Paints. Thereafter, he himself proceeded to state that Exhs.D.1 to D.8 are the invoices issued by the Berger Paints in his name. In his cross-examination the witness was put the entire case of the respondent which of course he denied.
9. Having thus examined the evidence on record, to our mind D.W.2 Abdul Majid, produced by the appellant himself, has sealed the fate of his case. The entire version of the respondent was put to the said witness and he admitted the same. The said documents Exhs.D.1 to D.8 completely belied the version of total denial of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant when confronted is unable to say anything with reference to the document Exhs.D.1 to D.8 and the statement of his own witness D.W.2. To our mind the invoice Exhs.P.1 to P.76, proved through the witnesses who prepared the same, list C.W.1/1 proved through P.W.4 read with the statement of D.W.2 fully proved the case of the respondent. On the other hand, the bare denial of the appellant stands belied in his very examination-in-chief. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the learned Court to Issue No,
1. Learned counsel for the appellant has not even touched Issues Nos.2 and 3. Findings on all the issues are consequently upheld. Resultantly the F.R.A. Is dismissed with costs throughout.
10. All the records of the learned trial Court as also the executing Court be immediately remitted back. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.