BODY FASHION through Director/Proprietor Versus MANSOOR TANNERY (PVT.) LTD.

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.--- This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2012 and 31.01.2012 respectively passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East dismissing Civil Appeal No.132/2010 against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 whereby learned IInd Civil Judge, Karachi East had decreed the Suit No.983/2009 filed by the respondent.

2. The brief facts germane for disposal of instant civil revision are that respondent company doing business of Tannery and Yarn dying, filed a suit for recovery of rupees one lac against the applicant company with the assertions that in August, 2008 applicant company entered into a contract with it and accepted the quotation rates, terms and conditions mentioned on the bottom of letter dated 04.8.2008 of respondent and after completing first assignment/job on 06.9.2008 and 10.10.2008 fresh quotations were accepted/approved by applicant company and their contract remained continued till February, 2009 during that period respondent company completed job amounting to Rs.9,23,384/- out of which applicant paid Rs.5,96.972/- on different dates while payment of Rs.326,412 was withheld on the pretext that dying was defective, when defendant approached and got reminded the condition of contract about checking of shade and quality of material before weaving and knitting. Applicant company paid Rs.226,412/- to respondents representative and got his signature on the endorsement made on the record as full and final settlement. However, dispute arose between parties when rupees one lac was withheld by the applicant. The said suit was contested by applicant/defendant and ultimately after conducting the full-fledged trial it was decreed by the learned IInd Civil Judge Karachi East and appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed as reflected in para 1 ante.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. The main contention of learned counsel for applicant/defendant is that due to defective dyed yarn respondent accepted the claim of Rupees one lac and his representative with his consent signed on the endorsement made on voucher as to full and final payment/settlement, which is admitted by witness of respondents namely Sarfaraz Ali Khan appearing as P.W.1 but on the direction of respondents with mala fide intention has concocted story of obtaining his signature forcibly. This contention of applicants counsel is devoid of force. It is settled principle of law that statement of a witness cannot be considered in isolation rather accumulative effect of the whole statement and documents produced by him is to be considered by the court of law. It is an admitted fact on record that there was acceptance of quotation by the applicant wherein a condition was imposed to have checked Shade and Quality before (Weaving and Knitting). Applicant's witness Hassan Askari Kamani, in clear terms has also admitted that he had agreed that as per term and condition No.3 of the quotation, they had to return the defective yarn before weaving and knitting. He has also admitted in cross-examination to have made endorsement on voucher as to claim of audit of Rs.100.000/-. DW.2 Ghulam Murtaza has also admitted in cross-examination that he had made endorsement on the voucher. No independent and trustworthy evidence is brought on record to prove that respondent/DH had forgiven rupees one lac and endorsement after full and final payment was made with his consent. The learned counsel for the applicant is unable to point any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of learned lower appellate court in arriving at the findings of dismissing appeal or any jurisdictional defect in passing of impugned Judgment and decree to warrant interference by this court on exercise of revisional jurisdiction the scope whereof being narrower is restricted to correct the error of law, if found to have been committed by the courts below in discharge of their judicial functions, which is not the case in hand.

5. The sequel of above discussion is that the instant civil revision has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.

SL/B-9/Sindh Petition dismissed.