Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 847 of 1975, decided on 18th March 1977.

‑‑‑‑ Scheme of Act ‑ Patties cannot be non‑suited on technical grounds‑Order passed by Court below within and in proper exercise of its jurisdiction‑Cannot be interfered with‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

‑‑ Art. 199‑Purpose of petition to harass respondent‑lady and to delay her suit and directed against an innocuous interlocutory order‑ Petition dismissed with costs.

M. Rashiduddiin for Petitioner.

B. A. Siddiqi for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 18th March 1977.

.‑This petition is directed against the order made by the Family Court and maintained by the Appellate Court by which he allowed the respondent‑wife, who had filed a suit for recovery of dower under Family Court Act, to amend the plaint to enable her to sign as well as verify the plaint. The order made by the Family Court was maintained by the First Appellate Court. The plaint in this rasp: was originally signed by an attorney of the respondent‑wife and the objection by the husband, the petitioner herein, in the written statement was that the attorney was not a duly authorised person. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent before us is that this original power of attorney was produced and shown by him to the Court. However, with a view to obviate any difficulty the respondent made tin application for amendment of her plaint so as to enable her to sign it. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that even if the plaint was not properly signed by the plaintiff's authorised agent the same cannot be rejected, for she could even otherwise be afforded an opportunity of making good the deficiency. They have also come to the conclusion that even originally the plaint was adequately signed, for the law does not envisage that the plaint under the Family Courts Act must be signed and verified by the plaintiff himself.

Mr. Rashiduddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to rule 4 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules in support of his contention that the plaint must be signed and verified by the plaintiff. The learned counsel contrasted this rule with the provision contained in Order VI, rules 14 rind 15, C. P. C. which specifically provided for signing of plaint by an authorised representative of the plaintiff; We are, prima facie of tile view that merely because rule 4 does not provide that the plaint may be signed by a plaintiffs authorised representative, will not make a plaint signed by an attorney and less effective in law. It is however, unnecessary to examine this question any further for in this case the respondent‑lady had made an application to amend the, plaint to be able to sign it herself. Mr. Rashiduddin, however, complained that the lady's prayer was confined to merely signing of the plaice but the order went further arid enabled her to verify the same. If the Courts below permitted the plaintiff to do so, and it is alleged on behalf of the respondent's counsel that this way; at his oral request they were quite within jurisdiction to do so, for that would result in compliance of rule 4 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules. The Scheme of the Family Courts Act would scow that it is not the intention of the Legislature to non‑suit parties on technical grounds for neither C. P. C. (except sections 10 and 11) nor Evidence Act apply to proceedings before it. The Court below having acted within and in proper exercise of its jurisdiction, we see no reason to interfere with the order made.

3. We are unfortunately left with the impression that the purpose of this petition was to harass the respondent‑lady and to delay nor suit and directed as it is against an innocuous interlocutory order, we dismiss the petition with) special cost which is fixed at Rs. 201 only.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.