Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 36 and 37 of 1984, decided on 26th February, 1984.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 9‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petitions No. .2744 and No. 2746 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9‑‑Suits for recovery of dower debt and maintenance filed by wife decreed by Family Court and upheld by District Judge‑‑Writ petition of husband against decrees dismissed by High Court‑‑High Court found justified in not interfering with judgments of Courts below‑ Leave to appeal refused.

Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Mian Nazir Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.

Date of hearing: 20th February, 1984.

.‑‑This order shall dispose of C.P.S.L.A. No.36 of 1984 and C.P.S.L.A. No.37 of 1984, both filed by Muhammad Ashfaq. The facts are that his wife, Mst. Shahida Parveen, had filed two suits against him in the Court of Family Judge: one for the recovery of Rs.6,100 as dower debt and the other for maintenance.

The learned trial Court had fixed 27‑5‑1982 as date for recording the evidence in both the cases in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. The counsel, however, failed to appear on that date with the result that the learned trial Court recorded ex parte evidence of the respondent but closed the defendant (petitioner's) evidence. Both the suits were finally decreed in favour of Mst. Shahida Parveen, respondent, on 3‑6‑1982.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the learned District Judge who declined to interfere. The petitioner thereupon filed two writ petitions before the High Court. Writ Petition No.2744 of 1983 related to suit for maintenance while Writ Petition No.2746 of 1983 related to the recovery of the dower debt. These were, however, dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 9‑10‑1983.

Hence the present two petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had not been granted reasonable opportunity by the learned trial Court to seek instructions from his client, whom he could not contact despite effort. We find no force in this plea for he should at least have himself appeared on the date fixed for evidence, explained the position and asked for further time. Moreover, he should have filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree but instead, he filed writ petitions against the orders of the District Judge which, in the circumstances,1 did not lie.

4. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that the High Court was justified in not interfering with the judgments of the learned Judge, Family Court and the learned Additional District Judge. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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