IMPORTANT POINT
In civil cases burden of proof is on party which asserts fact and that should be proved by sufficient, cogent, unambiguous and unequivocal evidence – A fact of issue cannot be decided on the basis of admission of opposite party.

JUDGMENT

Impugned in the instant civil 1st appeals is the common judgment and decree dated 31.07.2018 passed by the court of learned Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short), while disposing of three suits regarding the same subject matter. Two suits both for relief of rendition of accounts were filed by one Din Mohd S/O Abdul Aziz Sheikh R/o Dalain, Tehsil Gandoh respectively bearing file Nos. 13/Suit and 45/Suit instituted on 12.12.2005 and 01.02.2006 against one Shokat Ali S/o Din Mohd Lone R/o Bathri Tehsil Thathri. Din Mohd S/o Abdul Aziz filed the successive suit No. 45 also for rendition of accounts during pendency of the first suit of same nature before the court of learned Munsiff, Gandoh on the ground that he being an agriculturist was governed by the Agricultural Relief Act and as such, was needed to file his suit for rendition of accounts under the provisions of the said act. The other suit bearing file No. 29/Suit came to be instituted on 19.04.2006 by the Shokat Ali S/o Din Mohd Lone R/o Bathri Tehsil Thathri against Din Mohd And others for recovery of Rs. 2,93,000/-. The first suit bearing file No.13 was instituted firstly before the Munsiff, Gandoh when the suit No. 45 was originally filed before Sub-Judge, Bhaderwah when the third suit bearing file No. 29 came to be instituted before the learned trial court on 19.04.2006 with the relief of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,93,000/-. The earlier two suits also came to be withdrawn by the learned trial court from the files of aforesaid courts for the joint trail thereof with the suit bearing file No.29.

2. The learned trial court after conducting joint trial in all the three suits passed the common impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2018 thereby dismissing the suit Nos. 13 and 45 filed by Din Mohd for rendition of accounts as being non maintainable under law but allowing the suit No. 29 filed by Shokat Ali for recovery of money. As per the impugned judgment, the learned trial court decreed the suit of Shokat Ali against the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 therein namely, Din Mohd And Rehmat Ullah for an amount of Rs. 1,58,000/- and against the defendant No. 4 therein for an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- along with the costs of the suit against the said three defendants therein. The said defendants/judgment debtors were as per the impugned judgment and decreed dated 31.07.2018 directed to pay the decretal amount to the said plaintiff Shokat Ali within a period of one month with the stipulation that in case of failure to pay the decretal amount, the same shall carry an interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the date of institution of the said suit till the realization of the amount.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, Din Mohd And Rehmat Ullah assailed the same through civil 1st Appeal bearing No. 16/2018 whereas the other civil 1st Appeal bearing No. 19/2018 came to be filed by one Balkrishan S/o Panna Lal R/o Luddu Tehsil Gandoh against the aforementioned decree holder Shokat Ali.

4. The decree holder Shokat Ali S/o Din Mohd Lone is the contesting respondent in both the appeals.

5. The brief facts of the case that led to the filing of the trial suits and also relevant for disposal of the instant appeals are that the contesting respondent/plaintiff-Shokat Ali being a forest contractor used to work at various places in the country including Uttarakhand. That the appellants-Din Mohd (plaintiff in suit Nos. 13 and 45 and defendant No. 1 in suit No. 29) and Balkrishan (defendant No. 4 in suit No. 29) used to work as mates/labour suppliers, out of whom the appellant Din Mohd is alleged to have contracted with the contesting respondent Shokat Ali for supply of manpower (labour) on the agreed rates in connection with the work of felling and sawing of timber in Uttarakhand in the year 2005, which work had been allotted for execution to the contesting respondent-Shokat Ali. The appellant Balkrishan is allege