2004 PLP 69 (MLD)

Sajjad Ahmad v. Mst. Naeema Shafiq and 3 others 2003 CLC 1420 and Abdul Fahim v. Mst. Shahnaz Begum and another 2003 CLC 1450 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Substituting finding of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Such findings cannot be interfered with simply on the ground that another view possible on the same evidence‑‑‑High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on such matters. Miss Farhana Marwat for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th September, 2003. IJAZ‑UL‑HASSAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑Shortly narrated the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that Mst. Shabnam petitioner on 1‑10‑2001 filed suit against Liaqat Ali and his father Badiuzzaman respondents Nos.1 and 2, before Judge Family Court, Matta Swat, for dissolution of marriage, recovery of 20 tolas of gold as dower and maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month. It was, averred in the plaint that at the time of 'Nikah' an agreement deed was executed between father of the petitioner and respondent No.2 regarding payment of dower; that on the eighth day of Nikah respondent No.1 divorced the petitioner; that dower has not been paid despite demand and that the‑petitioner is entitled for recovery of dower and payment of maintenance. The suit was resisted and the dower was stated to have been paid to father of the petitioner by respondent No.2 in the shape of Rs.80,000 in cash. The learned trial Judge formulated necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit through his judgment and decree dated 28‑3‑2002, holding that execution of agreement deed dated 8‑1‑2001 (Exh.P.W.1/1) has not been proved; that dower amount stands paid and that petitioner wife is of entitled for payment of maintenance amount. An appeal was preferred there-against which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 9‑5‑2003 by learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi Matta, Swat.

2. Ms. Farhana Marwat, Advocate for the petitioner, in support of writ petition, contended that the judgments And decrees of the Courts below i.e., respondents Nos.3 and 4 suffer from gross misreading and non‑reading of evidence and the same cannot be allowed to remain intact. The learned counsel maintained that sufficient material was available on the file in support of the petitioner's claim which has been totally ignored without any justifiable reason which has materially prejudiced the interest of the petitioner. The submissions of the learned counsel carry no weight. Concurrent finding recorded by the Family Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be challenged/assailed in writ petition unless the Court is found to have exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or findings are shown to have been based on no evidence or mis-appreciation of evidence. Constitutional petition also does not lie to challenge an order on the ground that evidence in the case was not properly appreciated because findings of fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with simply on the ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence. High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on such matters. We have perused the impugned judgments and we find that plausible reasons have been given in support of the conclusions arrived at and no case of misreading and non‑reading of evidence has been made out. Appraisal or evaluation of evidence usually is not made in Constitutional petition. Such exercise is essentially undertaken by the trial Court. The High Court would not interfere with judgment and decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction for the reason that was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Judge Family Court to believe or disbelieve the evidence and that the Judge has given reasons in support of the conclusion drawn by him. Sajjad Ahmad v. Mst. Naeema Shafiq and 3 others (2003 CLC 1420) and Abdul Fahim v. Mst. Shahnaz Begum and another (2003 CLC 1450).

3. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to successfully demonstrate the existence of ground justifying our interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, we dismiss the writ petition in limine. M.H./949/P Petition dismissed.