1999 PLP 830 (YLR)

Syed Shaukat Abbas v. Mst. Bushra Rani and another PLD 1982 Lah. 281 and Abdur Rehman v. Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another PLD 1983 SC 21 rel. Asad Khan Barki for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th November, 1998. This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging order, dated 12‑5‑1998 whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the learned Judge Family Court, Kabirwala.

2. A suit was filed by respondents Nos.2 to 5 for maintenance which suit was contested by the petitioner. The petitioner is husband of respondent No.5 and father of respondents Nos.2 to

4. Issues were framed on 7‑7‑1997 by the learned Judge Family Court. Thereafter, the parties were given opportunity to produce their respective evidence.

3. The evidence of the plaintiff/ respondents was concluded on 22‑9‑1997 whereafter on number of occasion the case was adjourned in order to enable the petitioner to produce his evidence but he failed to do so despite the opportunities granted to him. On 12‑5‑1998, again, the petitioner failed to produce his evidence, as a result whereof, the learned Judge Family Court closed his evidence. This order of the learned Judge Family Court was challenged in appeal before the learned District Court which, however, was returned because of lack of competency of appeal. He has, thus, filed this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Order 17, Rule 3 of C.P.C. is not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Judge Family Court and, therefore, he has acted without jurisdiction in invoking the provisions of C.P.C, and closing the evidence of the petitioner and that if the party concerned is present in Court then, at least, his statement has to be recorded by the Court.

5. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel is concerned, suffice it to observe that it cannot be left at the discretion of the parties to produce their evidence on their convenience and leisure and continue seeking adjournments to prolong the proceedings till indefinite period. Although the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Judge Family Court, yet the Court has the power to close the evidence of the parties. Reference may be made to the Syed Shaukat Abbas v. Mst. Bushara Rani and another PLD 1982 Lah.

281. I am not impressed by the, submission of the learned counsel that the learned Judge, Family Court acted illegally or without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The learned Judge Family Court was fully justified in passing the order, dated 12‑5‑1998, as it was the fifth adjourned date for production of evidence by the petitioner, on which date again he failed to produce the same.

6. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel is concerned, it is not shown on the record that the petitioner was present on 12‑5‑1998 before, the learned Judge, Family Court when the order was passed and asked for the recording of his statement, but was declined. The simple assertion to this effect by him cannot be given credence now.

7. Further the order impugned is an interlocutory in nature. The question is whether writ petition is competent against such an order or not. It was held in Syed Shaukat Abbas v. Mst. Bushra Rani and another PLD 1982 Lah. 281 that if interlocutory order of Family Court was allowed to be challenged in writ petition the object of expeditious disposal of matrimonial cases would be frustrated. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Abdur Rehman v. Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another PLD 1983 SC 21 that piecemeal and fragmentary decisions tend to prolong "the matters and should not be allowed to be challenged in writ jurisdiction. Although the said case arose under the Rent Restriction Ordinance yet the principle is fully attracted to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1964. The object of the two laws being common i.e. the expeditious disposal of the cases. Otherwise the purpose of keeping interlocutory orders out of the purview of appeal would be defeated if the same are allowed to be challenged through writ 8 petitions. The petition is thus liable to be dismissed in view of the above legal position. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1035/L