2018 PLP 761 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AZEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASREEN BIBI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 761 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Syed Muhammad Attique Shah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASREEN BIBI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 761 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 761 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: Syed Muhammad Attique Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 761 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AZEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASREEN BIBI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khurshid Alam Khan for Petitioner.
- Malik Wali Sultan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5, Sched.
Suit for maintenance allowance of minors by mother
Application for production of additional evidence by father
Non-mentioning of said witnesses in the list filed with written statement
Effect
Father contended that he could be allowed to produce additional evidence of the witnesses which could not be included in the list earlier
Record revealed that father had submitted list of twelve witnesses along with his written statement, however, he produced only three witnesses and later he submitted an application for recording the statement of two persons and requested the Court to allow him to produce and record their statements in support of his case
Said application was filed by the father after lapse of more than two years, he had not shown any plausible reason or ground for not mentioning the names of said persons in the list of witnesses submitted by him
High Court observed that father's evidence had been closed and the case was pending for final arguments of the parties, therefore, at such belated stage the application for production of additional evidence would not serve any useful purpose rather said application was an attempt to further delay the decision of the case which was not desirable under the law
Constitutional petition being bereft of merit was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.
Through instant petition, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:-- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of instant writ petition, the impugned order dated 21.12.2016 may graciously be set aside and application filed by petitioner for production of additional witnesses may graciously be accepted. Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 instituted a suit in the Court of Judge Family Court, respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, maintenance, dowry articles and recovery of gold ornaments on 28.08.2014. The learned trial Court summoned the present petitioner, who appeared before the Court and filed his written statement along with list of witnesses on 20.11.2014. However, the present petitioner on 24.11.2016 moved an application for production of additional evidence of two witnesses in support of his claim. The learned Judge Family Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 21.12.2016. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record perused with their able assistance.
4. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner has submitted his list of witnesses along with his written statement in which he has cited twelve witnesses. However, he produced only three witnesses. Later, he submitted an application on 24.11.2016 for recording the statement of one Taj Muhammad and Sher Afzal, drivers and requested the Court to allow him to produce and record their statements in support of his case. The said application was filed by the petitioner after lapse of more than two years on 24.11.2016. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown any plausible reason or ground for not mentioning the names of said witnesses in list of witnesses submitted by him on 20.11.2014. In the present case, the petitioner/defendant's evidence has been closed on 03.12.2016, and now the case is pending for final arguments of the parties. Therefore, at this belated stage the petitioner's application for production of additional evidence would not serve any useful purpose rather it seems that the present application is an attempt to further delay the decision of the case, which is not desirable under the law.
5. Keeping in view the above stated facts, reasons and discussions thereupon, this Court reached to inescapable conclusion that the present writ petition is bereft of merits, therefore, the same is dismissed. MQ/268/P Petition dismisse