--Family Court was justified in closing the right of evidence of petitioner because West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 being brief enactment arrived at securing expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes and there was no provision to effect that evidence of party would not closed in any case

 PLJ 2005 Lahore 1253

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—

 

----Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908) O.XVII, R. 3--Constitutional jurisdiction--Matrimonial disputes--Closing of evidence--Five opportunities were given to petitioner for producing evidence but failed--Validity--Family Court was justified in closing the right of evidence of petitioner because West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 being brief enactment arrived at securing expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes and there was no provision to effect that evidence of party would not closed in any case--Held: Impugned order being of interlocutory nature cannot be interfered with by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction--Petition dismissed.   [Pp. 1254 & 1255] A & B

Mr. Abid Hussain Bhutta, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Ishfaq Chaudhry, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 31.3.2005.

 PLJ 2005 Lahore 1253
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
KHAIRAT MUHAMMAD--Petitioner
versus
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MIAN CHANNU, DISTT. KHANEWAL and another--Respondents
W.P. No. 6659 of 2004, heard on 31.3.2005.

Judgment

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2004 passed by Mr. Haider Ali Khan, learned Judge Family Court, Mian Channu, whereby has closed the right of evidence of the petitioner.

2.  Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Nikah of the petitioner was performed with Respondent No. 2 but Rukhsati had not taken place. Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of option of puberty against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner and he submitted his written statement before the learned Judge Family Court. Evidence of Respondent No. 2 was recorded on 15.10.2004 and the case was adjourned for the evidence of the petitioner. On 7.12.2004 the learned Judge Family Court closed the right of evidence of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3.  It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Judge Family Court is against law and facts; that it is settled law that the matter of the parties should be decided on merits and no person can be knocked out on mere technicalities and that the learned Judge Family Court while passing the impugned order did not apply his judicial mind. Reliance is placed upon Khalid Akhtar vs. Mst. Robina and others (1991 MLD 2349), Malik Furkan Ahmad vs. Judge Family Court, Lahore and another (2003 MLD 1641) and Maqsood Ahmad vs. Judge, Family Court Burewala and 5 others (2001 CLC 567).

3A.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order on the ground that the learned Judge Family Court has the power to close the evidence of a party if, in the opinion of the Court, is not producing evidence without any reason. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Syed Shaukat Abbas vs. Mst. Bushra Rani and another (PLJ 1982 Lahore 62). Further submits that the impugned order being interlocutory in nature, the instant petition is not competent.

4.  Arguments heard and record perused.

5.  Mst. Zareen Bibi Respondent No. 2/plaintiff had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 3.12.2003. Written statement was filed on 29.4.2004 by the petitioner. Statement of the plaintiff/Respondent No. 2 Mst. Zareen Bibi was recorded on 15.10.2004. The evidence of the petitioner/defendant was closed on 7.12.2004. It appears from the record that after approximately two months, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and it also appears from the impugned order that during the span of two months, five opportunities were given to the petitioner/defendant for producing evidence but he failed to do so. In such circumstances, the Family Court was justified in closing the right of evidence of the petitioner because West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 being a brief enactment arrived at securing expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes and there is no provision therein to the effect that the evidence of a party shall not closed in any case.

6.  Even otherwise the impugned order being an interlocutory order cannot be allowed to be taken exception to in writ jurisdiction because it would  only  linger  on  the  matter.  It  can,  therefore, be safely held that the impugned order being of interlocutory nature cannot be interfer with by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Rashid Ahmad vs. Soofi Muhammad Saleem (PLD 1976 Lahore 1450).

7.  For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 (R.A.)     Petition dismissed.