PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus SAKHAWAT SHAH
ALI BAIG, J.--- Through this civil first appeal the appellants/defendants have assailed the impugned judgment/decree dated 24-10-2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Hunza, whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff in his favour and against the present appellants/defendants.
2. The precise facts of the case in hand are that the present respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.10,10,000/- against the present appellants/defendants in the trial court claiming that the contract of work of rehabilitation/restoration of link road from Chaman Gul (KKH) to Polo Ground Gulmit was awarded to the plaintiff/respondent by the appellants Nos.1 to 5 on emergency basis as the aforesaid road was destroyed during Attabad disaster which was occurred in the year 2010. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff had completed the awarded work of restoration of aforesaid disputed road in the year 2010, but the defendants/appellants have yet paid bill of work done amounting to Rs.10,10,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff has further averred in the plaint that the defendants/appellants without paying the outstanding bill of the construction/restoration of aforesaid road to the respondent/plaintiff are bent upon to award contract of further widening and extension of the disputed road to some other person which is illegal and against the rights of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the defendants may be restrained from awarding of aforesaid contract to some other person.
3. The present appellants being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing joint written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments made in the plaint.
4. In order to resolve the controversy the following issues were framed by the trial court on 19-12-2012.
5. On 10-10-2013, the learned trial court also framed the following additional issues:-
6. After framing of the above mentioned issues both the parties led their respective evidence in the trial court. The plaintiff produced two oral witnesses namely Jan Alam Naib Tehsildar/D.K and Azat Ali Shah besides recording of his own statement in the trial court on 20-08-2013. The plaintiff has also produced some documentary evidence Exh. P/1 and P/2. The defendants/appellants have got recorded their statement through their departmental representatives and have also produced one D.W namely Khadim Hussain SDO B&R Division Hunza and have also relied upon some un-attested documents. The plaintiff/respondent has also produced one rebuttal witness namely Ghulam Rashid son of Ghulam Nasir.
7. On conclusion of trial the learned trial court after hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent in his favour vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 24-10-2017, hence this appeal.
8. The learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence of the parties, as such the impugned judgment/decree of the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Addl. A.G. further contended that the appellants/defendants had advertised in News Paper inviting tender for improvement and widening of the disputed road from Chaman Gul KKH to Polo Ground on 15-03-2012. The plaintiff/respondent had also participated in the tender process, but he could not qualify and after failure in getting contract of the disputed road has filed the suit in the trial court with mala fide intention, hence the suit of the plaintiff/respondent is not maintainable and the learned trial court has wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
9. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has supported the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court and contended that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment/ decree after proper appreciation of evidence of the parties and relevant provisions of law. The learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff further argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment/decree requiring interference by this court in exercising of its appellate jurisdiction, thus the instant appeal of the appellants merits dismissal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record available on file and considered the controversy with utmost care.
11. From perusal of record it transpires that Tehsildar Gujal vide his letter bearing No.TGH-434/2011 dated 20-06-2011 addressed to Assistant Commissioner Hunza has submitted his report regarding works executed by GB PWD B&R Division Hunza in connection with Attabad Disaster wherein he has confirmed that the disputed road from Chaman Gul (KKH) to Polo Ground Gulmit has been repaired by the plaintiff and is completed. The Executive Engineer B&R Division GB PWD Hunza/Nagar vide his report copy of the said report is available on the record of trial court has framed estimate of restoration of existing road from Chaman Gul (KKH) to Polo Ground at Gulmit and has submitted the same for accord of technical sanction by the competent authority. Moreover, Mr. Jan Alam Naib Tehsildar/D.K. who had appeared before the learned trial court as P.W-1 and has testified that he was posted at Gojal after Atta Abad Disaster/land sliding. Many projects were started on emergency basis and he was supervising the said projects. The contract of restoration of disputed road from Chaman Gul to Polo Ground at Gulmit was awarded to the plaintiff/respondent. He visited at the site twice or thrice and inspected the disputed road and the plaintiff/respondent was found there along with his labourers who were working on the said disputed road. P.W-2 namely Amir Ali and P.W-3 namely Izat Shah have also testified in the trial court that they have worked at Chaman Gul to Polo Ground road as labourer with the plaintiff. Furthermore, P.W namely Ghulam Rashid who has appeared before the learned trial court as rebuttal witness/evidence. He has testified that he was employee of GB PWD Hunza/Nagar. Due to Atta Abad land sliding/disaster the KKH was blocked. The plaintiff had repaired/restored the disputed road. He has further testified that SDO Sehat Ali and Overseer Khadim Hussain had measured the disputed road in his presence as he was appointed Supervisor for supervision of repair/restoration work of the disputed road.
12. The plaintiff/respondent has proved his case by adducing cogent and reliable oral and documentary evidence in the trial court; hence, the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment/decree dated 24-10-2017 passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this case. Accordingly, the instant civil first appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. File.
SA/198/GB Appeal dismissed.