2010 PLP 225 (YLR)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Rao Muhammad Ashiq Razzaq petitioner has filed this writ petition on 5-3-2009 with the following prayers:-- "In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may very graciously be accepted, the judgment dated 22-6-2006 passed by the' learned Additional District Judge/respondent No.2 whereby he dismissed the appeal against the order dated 6-3-2006 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 18-11-2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court/respondent No.3, may very kindly be set aside by declaring the same as illegal, against law and facts of the case, and the case may very kindly be remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the same on merits, in the interest of justice."

2. It was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that he had engaged a counsel but the counsel every time did not act faithfully in prosecuting his remedy and that it was for this reason that the judgment dated 22-6-2006 is being challenged through the present writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record appended with this petition.

4. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit for maintenance allowance and dowry articles on 2-3-2005. The present petitioner filed his written statement on 9-6-2005 whereafter he did not prosecute his defence ex parte proceedings were taken against him. On 1-7-2005, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but the same too was allowed to be dismissed in default on 16-9-2005. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on ex parte evidence on 18-11-2005. The decree dated 18-11-2005 was sought to be set aside by an application dated 17-11-2005. However, the same was rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court on 6-3-2006. The order dated 6-3-2006 was unsuccessfully challenged before Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, learned Additional District Judge, Arifwala vide judgment dated 22-6-2006. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The above narration of facts borne out by record would show and show clearly that the petitioner has not been prosecuting his remedy with due care and attendance. He has been engaging counsel of his own choice and if his counsel was not prosecuting his case faithfully, the remedy lay by way of damages or through a complaint before the appropriate forum of Bar Council. This was never done. The writ petition suffers from laches. Even otherwise, law does not provide any appeal or revision against the appellate judgment/order passed under the Family laws. It appears that the petitioner has not paid any maintenance and he is groping here and there. Writ petition cannot be considered as a substitute for an appeal or revision. I see no substance in the writ petition and proceed to dismiss the same in limine.

6. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Judge, Family Court/ executing Court, for information. S.A.K./M-260/L Petition dismissed.