2017 PLP 1871 (MLD)
MATIULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. SADDIQA — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1871 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Bannu Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MATIULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. SADDIQA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1871 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1871 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Bannu Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1871 (MLD) (MATIULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. SADDIQA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Jabbar Khan Khattak for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10
Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 & Sched.
Suit for recovery of cash and gold ornaments
Contesting parties being spouses
Jurisdiction of civil court/Family Court
Scope
Plaintiff/ husband contended that defendant/wife had taken away cash and gold ornaments which were to be recovered
Trial court dismissed the suit being a family matter
Witnesses of plaintiff being close relatives, father and uncle of plaintiff were interested witnesses who were not reliable in the eyes of law
Father of the plaintiff, during cross-examination, had admitted that respectables were sent to re-union of the wife with the plaintiff and they were not informed about taking away gold ornaments and cash by the defendant from their house
Similarly, uncle of the plaintiff during cross-examination stated that he visited the house of father of defendant/wife many times to take her back to the house of plaintiff but he neither talked to the defendant nor her father about gold ornaments and cash amount
Contention of plaintiff was not sustainable that the trial was not conducted by the Trial Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Solitary misdiscription in the judgment i.e. where the Presiding Officer described himself as Judge Family Court besides Civil Judge, would be of no effect upon the legality of trial; such being a misdiscription which was demonstrably incorrect, falling within the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet
Validity of the proceedings were not effected in circumstances
Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
S. 115
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 10
Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 & Sched.
Suit for recovery of cash and gold ornaments
Contesting parties being spouses
Jurisdiction of civil court/Family Court
Scope
Scope
Revisional jurisdiction was very limited where High Court could not set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts of competent jurisdiction nor it could upset the same even if on appreciation of evidence a different view could be formed unless such findings were shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of bare misreading and non-reading of material evidence, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption
No such infirmity had been pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned judgments, which might warrant interference of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, J.
Through instant revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner has called in question the concurrent judgments dated 17.3.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II/Judge Family Court, Karak and that of learned District Judge, Karak dated 10.11.2016 whereby the former dismissed suit of the petitioner while the latter upheld the same.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/defendant in absence of petitioner/plaintiff has taken away Rs.333,000/- cash amount and 06 Tolas gold ornament to the house of her parents with the collusion of her brother namely Barhan ud Din.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent/defendant by the learned trial Court who appeared and contested the suit by filing written reply, raising therein factual and legal grounds. The learned trial Court framed five issues including the relief. After recording of pro and contra evidence, the learned trial Court heard arguments of both the parties and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 17.3.2015. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the petitioner preferred civil appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Karak, which met the same fate. Hence the instant revision petition.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner heard and available record perused.
5. The petitioner alleged in his plaint that the respondent who is his wife has misappropriated/taken away 06 Tolas gold and Rs.333,000/- in cash. To prove his contention, the petitioner has failed to produce any independent and reliable evidence. So far as the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are concerned, their statements being close relatives of the petitioner and interested witnesses are not reliable in the eyes of law. As PW-1 is father of the petitioner who during cross-examination has admitted that Gulab and others were sent for the re-union of the respondent with the petitioner but said Gulab and others were not informed about taking away of 06 tolas gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs.333,000/- by the respondent from their house. Similarly PW-2 is happened to be uncle of the petitioner who during cross-examination stated that he visited the house of father of the respondent many times to take back the respondent to the house of the petitioner but he neither talked to the respondent nor her father about gold ornaments and cash amount.
6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has treated purely civil case of the petitioner as family Court case and thus has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law, however, this contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable as the trial was conducted by the trial Court under the C.P.C. In that view of the matter, the solitary misdiscription in the judgment i.e. where he described himself as Judge Family Court too beside Civil Judge, would be without effect upon the legality of the trial. It would be a misdiscription which was demonstrably incorrect, falling within the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet. It would therefore, be without effect upon the validity of the proceedings. Wisdom is derived from the case titled "Pio Gul v. The State" (PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 307).
7. Both the learned subordinate Courts after proper appraisal of evidence, produced by the parties rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
8. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited in which the Court cannot set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction nor it can upset the same even if on appreciation of evidence a different view can be formed unless these findings are shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of bare misreading and non-reading of material evidence, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption. No such infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned judgments, which may warrant interference of this Court. Reference, in this regard can be made to case titled, "Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 315).
9. For the reasons discussed above, the petition being meritless is hereby dismissed in limine. MQ/116/P Revision dismissed.