2010 PLP 218 (YLR)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Rashid Mehmood petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Shakargarh and affirmed by judgment and decree dated 28-7-2008 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh.

2. The facts are that a suit for recovery of dowry articles was filed by Mst. Rashida Begum respondent No.1 against the petitioner/defendant on 9-10-2007 before the' learned Judge, Family Court, Shakargarh. The suit was contested vide written statement filed by the writ-petitioner and it was claimed that the suit be dismissed.

3. In the course of trial, evidence was recorded but at one stage, the defendant/writ petitioner made an offer for decision of the suit on special oath. He made a statement on 26-3-2008 that if father of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 gave a special oath and the Holy Quran that the dowry articles as contained in the relevant list (later exhibited as Exh.P.1), were given to respondent No.1 at the time of marriage, he would return the same in accordance therewith.

4. This statement was accepted by the father of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. He also got recorded his statement on the same day. (26-3-2008). The proceedings were then adjourned to 27-3-2008. On 27-3-2008, again the proceedings were adjourned to 28-3-2008 for taking special oath as offered and accepted. On 28-3-2008, oath was given by father of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on the Holy Quran to the effect that he had given the dowry articles as contained in the relevant list to his daughter/respondent No.1 and that those articles were in possession of the petitioner/ defendant. Consequently, the relevant list of dowry articles was admitted as Exh. P.1 and the suit was decreed in accordance therewith.

5. The judgment and decree dated 28-3-2008 was challenged by the petitioner before the learned appellate Court. However, his appeal was dismissed on 26-7-2008 by Mr. Shafqat Ali, Additional District Judge, Shakargarh.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that oath was not taken as offered and accepted; that the suit was barred by time as per provisions of "Dowry Articles and Marriage Gift Act, 2003" that the petitioner was a "deaf and dumb" person and that, in any case, the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below were the result of "incorrect exposition of law."

7. I am afraid none of the grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is valid. I have examined the proceedings conducted by the learned trial Court on 26-3-2008 and 28-3-2008. Special Oath was taken on 28-3-2008 as offered and accepted on 26-3-2008. The arrangement for disposal of the suit as agreed to by the parties, was a sort of compromise and was quite lawful and permissible. None of the parties could be allowed to turn round. In ground (d) of Para 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioner himself that "Talaq" was effected on 5-9-2007. A copy of the plaint appended as Annex-A to the writ petition, shows that suit for recovery of dowry articles was filed on 9-10-2007. How was it barred by time? The argument in the context of limitation is dismissed as being fallacious. In the aforesaid ground, reference has been made to "Dowry Articles and Marriage Gift Act, 2003". I am afraid there is no such law with the above nomenclature. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 28-3-2008 being in congruity with the special oath in terms of compromise, no appeal lay against it. The learned appellate Judge rightly dismissed the appeal on 26-7-2008. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is totally mis conceived and is dismissed in limine." S.A.K./R-20/L Petition dismissed.