2010 PLP 405 (CLC)
MUREED ABBAS — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOUNSA SHARIF DISTRICT D.G. KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 405 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUREED ABBAS — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOUNSA SHARIF DISTRICT D.G. KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 405 (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 2010 PLP 405 (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: 2010 PLP 405 (CLC) (MUREED ABBAS — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOUNSA SHARIF DISTRICT D.G. KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Keizer Heat Khan Pinion for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched., Ss.13 & 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Determination of rate of gold
Suit of plaintiff was concurrently decreed by the Family Court and Appellate Court
Defendant had admitted decree to the extent of 10 Tolas gold which decree was upheld upto Supreme Court
Only dispute was about the rate of gold at what rate that decree should be executed
Claim of the defendant was that marriage between the parties having been solemnized on 26-8-2002, rate of gold should be that which was at the time of solemnization of marriage on 26-8-2002, while Executing Court had fixed the rate as Rs.29,000 per tola, which was the rate at the time of execution of decree
Appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Appellate Court which upheld the order passed by the Executing Court, whereby rate of gold was determined at the rate which was prevailing at the time of execution of decree
No interference in concurrent findings of facts of two courts below was called for in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Constitutional petition having been filed just to prolong the matter, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.
Through this writ petition, petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 14-9-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Taunsa Shari and following relief has been prayed for:
"Under the circumstances, it is prayed that order dated 24-6-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Taunsa Sharif and order dated 14-9-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Taunsa may kindly be declared without lawful authority and no legal effects and easy instalment may kindly be made of the decree under execution for its satisfaction."
2. Mureed Abbas son of Dost Muhammad filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Taunsa in which first part of his appeal admitted that decree to the extent of 10 Tolas gold from the Judge Family Court upto the honourable Supreme Court was passed against the present petitioner. The only dispute was about the rate of gold at what rate that decree should be executed. The execution proceedings in favour of Mst. Kaneez Mai v. Dost Muhammad are pending before the Judge Family Court, Taunsa where the judgment-debtor filed an application that the rate of per Tolas of gold has been determined by the learned executing Court, who fixed the same as Rs.29,000 that his grievance is only about the rate of gold, he has not challenged the judgment and decree which was finalized upto honourable Supreme Court on facts against them: that the marriage between the spouses petitioner and respondents No.3 was solemnized on 26-8-2002 so the rate of gold should be that which was at the time of solemnization of marriage on 26-8-2002 while learned Judge Family Court has fixed the rate as Rs.29,000 per Tolas the rate at the time of execution of decree, on this sole point the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same upheld the order passed by the executing Court in favour of respondent No.1 whereas in concurrent findings of facts no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for instalment in writ jurisdiction this prayer cannot be entertained. This writ petition is filed just to prolong the matter. Learned Executing Court should finalize the execution proceedings without fail.
3. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-846/L Petition dismissed.