' PARVEZ AHMAD. J.---The present appellant/defendant before the trial Court. Through this regular first appeal has challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22-6-1993 by virtue of which the suit for recovery of money brought by respondent/plaintiff was decreed in its favor.
2. The facts, on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs,8,68,888.1, were that the defendant is a limited company carrying on the business of soft drinks entered into a contract to pay Rs,8,62,045 to the plaintiff out of which Rs,50,000 had been paid prior to the filing of the present suit leaving an outstanding balance of Rs,8,12,045 which had been claimed by the plaintiff alongwith the interest and the costs of litigation. It was alleged that the plaintiff delivered bags of sugar to Ghulam Hussain who supplied the same onward to different parties including the defendant, the payments of which were to be received by the plaintiff from the said Ghulam Hussain and in the alternative Ghulam Hussain received the payments from the defendant. During the course of supply of sugar, the defendant defaulted in the payment of Rs,8,62,045 for the sugar supplied to them which default stands admitted by the defendant through certain letters attached with the plaint. It was further averred that it was agreed in-between the plaintiff and the defendant that the amount of Rs,8,62,045 will be paid directly to the plaintiff within a maximum period of four months from the start of supply of sugar but not later than August, 1985. It was alleged that mode of repayment was arranged as follows:-- "That the mode of repayment of the arrears was as follows: Rs,10,000 was to be paid by the defendant together with the value of each truck load of sugar through their post-dated cheques on receipt of advance in the name of Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd. For supply of each truck load."
' The defendant on different intervals made the payment of Rs,50,000 and outstanding balance of Rs,8,12,045 has still not been paid by it. The plaintiff in this regard also issued a notice dated 16-12- 1985 which was received by the defendant on 22-12-1985 but of no avail, hence this suit. The defendant contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(2) Whether this suit has been filed by a duly authorised person? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? OPP
(4) Relief.
3. The trial Court recorded the evidence of P.W.1 Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.2 Muhammad Aqeel Khan, P.W.3 Zahid Ali Khan, P.W.4 Mazhar Inayat, P.W.5 Ch. Abdul Hach P.W.6 Muhammad Sharif, P.W.7 Imtiaz Ahmad, P.W.8 Abdul Jabbar, plaintiff tendered some documents in evidence and then closed the evidence. The defendant was asked to produce its evidence but in spite of repeated adjournments and opportunities allowed in this regard, the defendant failed to produce its evidence and it was closed on 23-12-1993. Ultimately the trial Court after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties came to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed to the tune of Rs,8,12,045 and decreed it accordingly. The defendant feeling itself aggrieved has filed the present R.F.A.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the trial Court records. The main submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that one Ghulam Hussain to whom reference was made in the pleadings of the parties was a necessary party to the suit but has not been impleaded as a defendant or as a plaintiff. It is also submitted that no amount was due from his side in favor of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondent supports impugned decree.
5. After giving due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the fact worth consideration is that the appellant (defendant) as stated in letter Exh.P.5 clearly admitted its liability to make payment of this amount in favor of the plaintiff vide letter Exh.P.5. The defendant admitted and committed that Ghulam Hussain had been supplying sugar to them during the year 1984 on that account they owed him Rs,8,62,045 and vide their letter dated 4-3-1985 the defendant further committed to pay Rs,10,000 delivered per truck load plus value of the sugar vide letter Exh.P.6. The defendant through letter dated 11-3-1985 admitted liability which is Exh.P.7. The plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant making demand of the amount and confirming the repayment of the Schedule agreed by the defendant, which was confirmed vide letter dated 18-3-1985 Exh.P.B vide Exh.P.9 the defendant made payment of Rs,20,000. Exhs.P.10, 11, 12, 13 are copies of the correspondence effected in-between the plaintiff and the defendant. Inspection of the above documents in evidence clearly proves the liability of the defendant to the tune of Rs,8,62,045 and that sugar supply was made to them through Ghulam Hussain. These documents also establish that mode of repayment by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff was settled which was not adhered to by the defendant. The defendant made payment of an- amount of Rs,50,000 through cheque Exhs.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 as deposed by the plaintiff's witnesses Muhammad Ashraf as P.W.I and P.W.2 Muhammad Aqeel, P.W.3 Zahid Ali, P.W.4 Mazhar Inayat. Apart from this situation the defendant did not produce any evidence in rebuttal to the case of the plaintiff in spite of repeated opportunities and adjournments in this regard. The defendant has not challenged the order of closure of their evidence by the trial Court even before us.
6. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the case set up by the respondent was that it would supply sugar to Ghulam Hussain who further supplied the same to the appellant. The amount in question was stated to be due on account of supplies made to Ghulam Hussain for further supply to the appellant. It was in this context that the appellant undertook to make the payment of the said sugar to the appellant. This is the tenor of the letter Exh.P.5, Exh.P.6 read with letter Exh.P.7 of the respondent. Further undertaking was made vide letter Exh.P.8. We have already found above that pursuance to the said commitment some payments also made by the respondent to the appellant vide letters Exh.P.9 and Exh.P.14. Since the liability to pay the amount was undertaken by the appellants, to our mind Ghulam Hussain was neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and as such nothing turns on the said opinion of the learned counsel.
7. In view of this discussion and the documentary evidence discussed above by virtue of which the defendant admitted its liability to make payment of the amount in question, the trial Court rightly decided the suit of the plaintiff in its favor. In this manner the present appeal without being any substance or force and not based on any cogent legal reasons as such we dismiss this R.F.A.