2006 PLP 41 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 18-2-2004, whereby the appeals filed by the parties were accepted and the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan was set aside. He further ordered the trial Court to ask the parties to produce their evidence in accordance with the new issues framed by him and decide the matter issuewise.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No.1 Mst. Raeesa is wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 Irfan Ahmad is son of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 filed four suits i.e. suit for maintenance allowance, suit for recovery of dowry of articles, suit for recovery of dower and suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Judge Family Court, Multan vide his judgment dated 13-12-2003 dismissed the suit for recovery of dower, decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, also partially decreed the suit for maintenance allowance with the observation that the minor Irfan Ahmad/respondent No.2 will get the arrears to the tune of Rs.7,000 and thereafter shall receive maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1.000 per month till he attains majority and lastly partially decreed the suit for recovery of dowry articles to the extent of Rs.50,

000. The respondent filed two appeals, one against the judgment dated 13-12-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby he dismissed the suit for maintenance to her extent and less decreed the maintenance of respondent No.2 Irfan Ahmad and the other against the judgment dated 13-12-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby he partially decreed the suit of the respondent and deprived her of remaining dowry articles of Rs.2,01,

200. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the judgment dated 13-12-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby he partially decreed the suit of the respondent for dowry articles and ordered for payment of Rs.50.000 to the respondent in lieu of dowry articles. The petitioner also filed cross-objections to the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment dated 13-12-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby he dismissed the suit for maintenance to the extent of the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge, Multan, vide his judgment dated 18-2-2004 accepted the appeals and cross-objections and remanded the case to the learned Judge Family Court with the direction to decide the case in accordance with the new issues framed by him, which were 13 in number. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan is against law and facts and that the learned Appellate Court was not justified in remanding the case of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the learned trial Court had not inferred the issues according to the pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. A perusal of the issues framed by the learned trial Court reveals that the same were not inferred according to the pleadings of the parties. For example from Issue No.2 the impression can be taken that the dowry articles as mentioned in the plaint were given to the respondent and still are in the custody of the defendant. Only issue is to be decided as to whether the respondent/ plaintiff is entitled to recover these articles or not, while the contention of the petitioner is that no dowry articles were given. Similarly, from Issues Nos.3-A and 3-B the impression can be taken that the ornaments were given to the respondent/ plaintiff and still are in the custody of the petitioner/defendant and the amount of Rs.20,000 had been spent on the delivery of respondent No.2 minor child Irfan Ahmad. While contention of the petitioner is that no ornaments were given. Moreover, the amount of Rs.20,000 was not incurred upon the delivery of respondent No.2. Until and unless the issues are not framed properly the adequate judgment cannot be passed.

7. In view of the above circumstances, it is held that the learned Additional District Judge, Multan was right in remanding the case to the learned trial Court and also framing new issues. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-555/L Case remanded.