The case of the plaintiff is for the recovery of dowery and beri articles. In her evidence she stated that the articles i.e. one wooden Almarah, a double bed, divider, Chinese sofa, dressing table, dining table, imported blanket, refrigerators (full size) of Waives company, a washing machine, T.V (Sony) 14” made in Japan, dinner sets, juicer, iron, utensils, dineer set made in france, water set, cutlery set, sewing machine zigzag, micro waive oven, pedestal Fan, air cooler and cloths etc, of Rs.600,000/- (six lac). Whereas the plaintiff witness No.2, the father of the plaintiff has added a golden chain and a cash of Rs.45,000/- (Forty five thousand). It may be noted that it is no where mentioned in the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses that the father of the plaintiff had gone at Lodhran at the house of her in-laws and the plaintiff or her in-laws and any of the member of in-laws of the plaintiff or plaintiff herself had showed or told about the cash of Rs.45000/- (Forty five thousand) and golden chain. Hence such addition by the father of plaintiff shows malafide on the part of plaintiff side. Furthermore, the list of dowery/beri articles annexed with the plaint is not produced in evidence exhibited and Ex.22 and 23 are neither filed nor relied upon in the list of documents mentioned in the plaint nor copies thereof were supplied to the defendant side hence the same are not considerable. Though no any objection raised by the defendant side at the time of exhibition of documents (Ex.22 to 32) but non raising of objection would not make the documents as admissible. Reliance is placed on case of Karachi Electric Supply Company Limited reported in P.L.D 2008 Karachi 572, it has been held that any document placed on record or exhibited, which has not been duly proved can not be considered as an admissible piece of evidence. A careful glance of Ex.22 to 32 would show that the value of some of the articles shown in Ex.32 are different from cash memo Ex.22 to 31. For example value of Hot Pot shown in Ex.32 as of Rs.1000/- whereas the value shown in Ex.31 as of Rs.600/-. Value of non-sticky set of kitchen shown in Ex.31 as Rs.2400/- (twenty four hundred) whereas in Ex.32 its value is shown as Rs.4500/- (Forty five hundred). Value of Balty steel in Ex.30 as of Rs.300/- (Three hundred) and the value shown in Ex.32 as Rs.600/- (Six hundred) cutlery set shown in Ex.32 as of Rs.1200/- (One thousand two hundred), its value in Ex.31 is of Rs.350/- (Three hundred fifty). Value of water set france shown in Ex.32 as of Rs.2000/- (two thousand). Dinner set Malamy Thai Ex.32 as of Rs.4300/- (Four thousand three hundred), its value in ex.29 is Rs.2500/- (two thousand five hundred). If we take Ex.22 to 32 out of consideration then the case of plaintiff is of oral evidence. It is contended by the plaintiff that the dowery/beri articles were transported through Al-Saeed Goods Forwarding Agency Tando Adam and the list thereof was prepared at the time of marriage and boarding in Truck. The father of the plaintiff (plaintiff witness No.2) in his evidence produced Photo Stat copy of receipt showing transportation of the articles in Truck to Lodhran but nothing produced on record in the shape of any delivery receipt that the articles were actually delivered at Lodhran. The present receipt is only a receipt of consignment. Such receipt can be obtained easily from the agency. The perusal of Nikahnama shows that no such list of dowery articles bridal gifts and presents given furnished to the Registrar.
C.P.No.S- 350 of 2009
