It is settled principle that the Courts must aid the fair administration of justice by ensuring that litigation must come to an end by not allowing a litigant to agitate a particular ground and/or cause of action again and again, by filing successive applications, as the same amounts to abuse of process of law, causes hardship to the other side and runs counter to public policy that issue once decided and attained finality, cannot be reopened. Therefore, once order dated 24.10.2019 of the learned Executing Court was upheld by the learned Appellate Court below, the respondent cannot be allowed to agitate the same ground as such a leverage to a litigant to file successive applications defeats the principle of public policy discussed hereinabove. On another plain, this Court is cognizant of the fact that in case the judgments of the learned Courts below are at variance, preference should be given to the judgment of the learned Appellate Court below, more particularly, in family matters as held in case reported as "Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal and others" (PLD 2006 SC 457). However, in view of the above discussion, this is a fit case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction by this Court as the learned Appellate Court below has acted without appreciating the material available on record. In fact, the learned Appellate Court below acted in excess of jurisdiction inasmuch as by passing the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court below has reviewed its earlier order dated 22.01.2020 whereby the learned Appellate Court below upheld the order of the learned Executing Court dated 24.10.2019 dismissing the claim of the respondent to receive alternate value of dowry articles. Jurisdiction to review its earlier order is not vested with the learned Appellate Court below. Therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain.
Family
22694/22
Muhammad Abu Sufyan Vs Additional District Judge etc
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
06-02-2023
2023 LHC 560
0 comments:
Post a Comment