ALI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN

ORDER

' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Mst. Zahida Parveen, against the petitioner, Ali Muhammad, for recovery of the articles of her dowry or for the payment of Rs,24,000 as their price. It was alleged by the respondent that she was married to Muhammad Aslam but, unfortunately, he breathed his last after about five years of their marriage. She maintained that articles of her dowry, worth Rs,24,000, were with the petitioner, who is father of her husband. She complained that she repeatedly asked the petitioner to return the articles of dowry or pay their price but he had refused to do so. Hence the suit.

2. The suit was resisted by the petitioner but it was ultimately decreed by a Civil Judge.

3. The petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but that was dismissed. He has, therefore, come' up in revision to this Court.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the two {{URDU TEXT}} ' Courts below had not discussed the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgments and decrees and, therefore, the same were not sustainable.

5. 1 have gone through the judgments passed by the two Courts below and find that they had examined the evidence of both sides before recording finding in favour of the respondent. It was also pointed out by the learned Additional District Judge that averments made by the petitioner were self-contradictory and, therefore, deserved no credence. It was explained by him that on the one hand it was averred by the petitioner that no dowry was given to the respondent at the time of her marriage but on the other hand it was pleaded by him that he had not withheld or misappropriated any articles of her dowry.

6. Findings recorded by the learned lower Courts are supported by evidence. The questions whether the respondent was given dowry and the same is being retained by the petitioner are the questions of fact on which there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with their findings was pointed out by the learned counsel. It is not disputed that the two Courts below had jurisdiction to pass the judgment and decrees assailed herein. Also, they are not perverse, fanciful, capricious or arbitrary and are based on evidence and not on conjectures and surmises. It is, therefore, not a fit case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 88), Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 53), Motio and 3 others v. Ghulam Mehdi and 6 others (1985 CLC 2238), Mst. Kaneez Fatima and another v. Ghulam Hussain and 10 others (1985 CLC 217) (Azad J & K), Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Sattar and others (1985 CLC 1190) (Lahore) and Iftikhar Hussain and another v. Qamar-uz-Zantan (1984 CLC 3298) (Lahore) are some of the authorities in point.

7. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine.