2006 PLP 108 (CLC)

DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.

Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has questioned the judgments and decrees dated 30-7-2002 of the Family Court and dated 20-11-2004 of the Appellate Court, based on concurrent finding recorded by them.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in. view of the two dower deeds brought on record and the entries in Column No. 14 therein are inconsistent on the point of nature of the dower to which both the Courts have not attended in a legal manner and such omission has caused miscarriage of justice. Next he contended that the dowry articles were not taken into possession in a legal manner and an undue haste was shown by the trial Court adopting unprecedented procedure for its recovery. Further contended that even the Nikah Khawan has admitted that he made entries in the form of dower deed but in a manner not laid down by the relevant rules rendering the dower deed doubtful. Thus, both the Courts below have committed legal error while relying on such dower deed.

3. We are cognizant of the fact that while sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction we have to see as to what error of law or jurisdiction h4s been committed by the two Courts below but none was pointed out except the above. The perusal of both the dower deeds would show that all the rest of the columns have been properly filled and the entries therein fully tally with each other except that of Column No. 14 where in one of the dower deed relied upon by the petitioner the fact that the dower was payable on demand was omitted. The witness/author of the same has given plausible explanation to that effect which is not open to any exception. The dowery articles were squarely denied by the petitioner but when the trial Court deputed its Bailiff to discover and seize the same, majority of the dowery articles were found in the house of the petitioner which were seized, taken into possession and were delivered to the respondent/plaintiff under the order of the Court.

4. Not because of the dower deed alone an agreement duly executed by the parties also have created liability on part of the petitioner which are prior in time to the dower deeds. The overwhelming evidence brought on record by the respondent/plaintiff has established the case upto the hilt and both the learned Courts below after applying their judicial mind with reasonable depth to each and every aspect of ,the case both legal and factual have arrived at a conclusion which is perfectly in accord with law and principle of justice to which no B exception can be taken and when no misreading or non-reading of evidence of the nature causing miscarriage of justice has been pointed out then no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.

5. This petition being devoid of legal merits is therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./539/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.