2005 PLP 423 (CLC)
ZAHID HUSSAIN and 9 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ROBINA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 423 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Nasir‑ul‑Mulk, CJ and Shah Jehan Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAHID HUSSAIN and 9 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ROBINA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 423 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 423 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Nasir‑ul‑Mulk, CJ and Shah Jehan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 423 (CLC) (ZAHID HUSSAIN and 9 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ROBINA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Asadullah for Petitioners.
- Alam Khan for Respondent No.1 on pre‑admission notice.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 5 & Sched, 13 & 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Suit for recovery of dower‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Objection‑‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Decree and judgment of two Courts below could not be objected to by the petitioner for interference by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Execution of a decree was the job of Trial Court and any objection in that regard could be raised and disposed of by the Executing Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Sahibzada Asadullah for Petitioners. Alam Khan for Respondent No.1 on pre‑admission notice. SHAH JEHAN KHAN, J.‑‑ This Constitutional petition is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Mardan, dated 16‑2‑2004 decreeing suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 which was also upheld in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Mardan vide judgment, dated 9‑4‑2004.
2. While hearing‑the writ petition in motion, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he will not otherwise grudge the finding of the Family Court duly upheld in appeal but since the property decreed has now been converted into a commercial market and the petitioners intends to settle the dispute with respondent‑decree‑holder. In this view of the matter, pre‑admission notice was served upon respondent No.1 in response whereof she appeared along with her counsel. Respondent No.2 who is husband of decree‑holder/respondent No. 1 and the brother of petitioners Nos.1 to 9 also put his appearance without notice.
3. Today we put suggestion made by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 for any settlement in lieu of the property decreed in her favour but she refused to enter into any settlement with the petitioners and prayed for disposal of the writ petition on merits.
4. The learned counsel for .the petitioners was asked to argue his case on merits, but he frankly conceded that the impugned decree and judgment cannot be questioned through a Constitutional petition. However, the property decreed in favour of respondent No.1 was a vacant site at the time of execution of deed by the petitioner's predecessor in lieu of dower but subsequent to the execution of deed a portion of it was converted into a commercial building and rest of the area measuring about 10 Marlas is still vacant site. Suit of the respondent No.1 was decreed on the basis of deed Exh. P. W.2/1 in the contents whereof a cemented built up house over an area of 10 Marlas of land in the given boundaries was given to her in lieu of dower. The decree in favour of respondent No. 1 could not be executed in letter and spirit as there is no cemented built up house on the land decreed in favour of respondent No. 1 in lieu of dower. 4‑A. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners could not object to the decree and judgment of the two Courts below for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction and the execution of decree is the job of trial Court any objection in that regard could be raised and disposed of by the Executing Court. In these circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./306/P Petition dismissed.