2009 PLP 848 (CLC)
Mian SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASEEM BIBI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 848 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASEEM BIBI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 848 (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 2009 PLP 848 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 848 (CLC) (Mian SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NASEEM BIBI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Ashraf-I for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched. & S.11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Closing of evidence of defendant.--Evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and defendant, who failed to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiff, was granted last opportunity to produce his evidence, but he failed to produce same without any justification and his defence was closed
No provision existed in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 to the effect that evidence of the party would not be closed in any case
Very purpose of its enactment was to ensure expeditious disposal of case and court could close the evidence of a party who failed to adduce evidence without sufficient cause
Section 11 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had provided that on the date fixed for evidence, the Family Court would examine the witnesses produced by the parties
In the present case despite a caution of last opportunity to produce the evidence, defendant had failed not only to appear in the court, but also had not produced the witnesses; it was, in circumstances, a case of double default committed by the defendant
Matter was pending for the last more than 10 years
Defendant was given last opportunity, but he did not care even to appear in the court
Trial Court, in circumstances, was justified to close the evidence
No illegality was found in the impugned order calling for interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
Instant writ petition is filed against the impugned order dated 22-12-2008 whereby the learned Judge Family Court closed the right of evidence.
2. The brief facts given in the writ petition are that respondent No.1 on 28-10-1998 filed a suit for maintenance of herself and three minors. This suit was contested and petitioner denied the relationship and filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against respondent No.1. Both these suits were consolidated by the learned Judge Family Court. After framing of issues, evidence of respondent No.1 was recorded while petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses. On 29-2-2008, the petitioner filed an application for acceptance of his list of witnesses, which was contested .by the respondent and the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the same. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.18524 of 2008 in this Court against the impugned order dated 17-11-2008 but the same was dismissed in limine. The suit for maintenance proceeded further. The evidence of the respondent was recorded and petitioner was granted last opportunity. On the next date 22-12-2008, he did not produce evidence without any justification and his evidence was closed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the sole ground that on 22-12-2008, the absence of the petitioner was not wilful because he could not produce his witnesses due to certain unavoidable circumstances, therefore, the learned trial Court should have granted one more opportunity.
4. Heard.
5. There is no provision in Family Court Act, 1964 to the effect that evidence of the party shall not be closed in any case. The very purpose of the enactment is to ensure expeditious disposal and Court can close the evidence of a party who fails to adduce evidence without sufficient cause. Section 11 provides that on the date fixed for evidence, the Family Court shall examine the witnesses produced by the parties in such order as it deems fit. In this case, despite a caution of last opportunity to produce the evidence, the petitioner as defendant had failed not only to appear in Court but also produced the witnesses. It was thus a case of double default committed with a view to gain more time. The principle as contained under Order XVII, rules 1(3), and 3, C.P C. was attracted. The matter is pending for the last more than 10 years. The petitioner was given last opportunity but he did not care even to appear n Court. The previous adjournment was granted at his own request with a caution. In the circumstances, the trial Court was justified to close the evidence. There is no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in limine. H B.T./S 62/L Petition dismissed.