Family suit---Right of defendants to submit written statement, closing of---Powers of the Family Court---Scope---Contention of the petitioner / defendant was that there was no provision in the Family Courts Act, 1964, to close defendant's right to file his written statement-

 Family suit---Right of defendants to submit written statement, closing of---Powers of the Family Court---Scope---Contention of the petitioner / defendant was that there was no provision in the Family Courts Act, 1964, to close defendant's right to file his written statement---Validly---Section 8 of the Family Courts Act ('the Act 1964') stipulates the issuance of summons in prescribed manner and S.9(1) of the Act, 1964, stipulates filing of written statement in prescribed manner on the next date of hearing---In case the written statement is not filed on that date, the Family Court may, for any sufficient reason, allow the defendant to file written statement on the next date not exceeding 15 days---Although there was no specific provision under the Act, 1964 for failure to file written statement, however, failure of a defendant to file written statement within stipulated time period entailed striking off his defence in terms of O.VIII, R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---In absence of written statement, the defendant could still cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, lead evidence to disprove the facts averred in the plaint and also take part in the arguments---Record revealed that the petitioner/defendant did not challenge the order of the Court closing the right of written statement before the Family Court or at the higher forum---When the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded, the Family Court fixed the case for final arguments, however, the petitioner agitated before the Court contending that his right to defence was still intact; then the Court passed a specific written order by virtue of which petitioner was given opportunity only to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the respondent/ plaintiff but not allowed to produce his evidence---Petitioner did not challenge the said order even , rather accepted the same by cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses, which showed that he had no intention to lead his evidence to disprove the facts stated in plaint---Petitioner/ defendant was estopped by his own conduct and could not agitate his contention/ ground for the first time while invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Raja IBADAT SAJJAD KHAN vs Mst. SHEHNAZ KOUSAR
2024 CLC 187