2010 PLP 3167 (YLR)
Mst. SHUMAILA BIBI — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 3167 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Hajiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHUMAILA BIBI — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 3167 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 3167 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Hajiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 3167 (YLR) (Mst. SHUMAILA BIBI — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasir-ud-Din Mehmood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Suit for jactitation of marriage
Plaintiff's application for summoning some witnesses was dismissed during pendency of the suit by the Trial Court
Order of dismissal of application was an order of interim nature which did not bear the characteristic of a 'final order', therefore, same could not be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed. Ishfaq Ahmad v. Judge, Family Court 2007 YLR 1550 and Abdul Karim v. Ata Mansoor 2007 CLC 1671 rel.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.
Through the instant writ petition petitioner Mst. Shumaila Bibi daughter of Muhammad Ashraf challenges the order dated 24-2-2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby the application of the petitioner for summoning certain witnesses filed in her suit for jactitation of marriage has been dismissed.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit on 26-8-2009 for jactitation of marriage against respondent No.2 Muhammad Younas. After failure of the reconciliation proceedings between the parties, issues were framed. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed an application for summoning some witnesses and the said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court holding that the same has been filed to prolong the proceedings in the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of Nikahkhawan and other witnesses are necessary to show that Nikah of the petitioner was solemnized with Abdul Majeed on 10-12-2005 and that a Kabeennama was executed between the petitioner and her said husband on 29-7-2009 whereby he has handed over a house consisting of 4-Marla and a cheque of Rs. 13 lac to her father as guarantee; that the evidence of the said witnesses was necessary for the just decision of the suit of the petitioner; that the application has illegally been dismissed by the learned trial Court through the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file. The interim order dated 24-2-2010 is an order of interim nature which does not bear the characteristics of a `final order', therefore, it cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction. The matter was adjourned to 26-2-2010 after passing the impugned order by the trial Court. In the case reported as Ishfaq Ahmad v. Judge, Family Court (2007 YLR 1550) defendant failed to file written statement and the right of the defendant to file written statement was struck off and the High Court in writ jurisdiction refused to interfere in the interlocutory order of the trial Court passed in the pending family suit. In another case Abdul Karim v. Ata Mansoor (2007 CLC 1671), the High Court dismissed writ petition filed against an interim order of the Family Court in a pending suit.
5. For the reasons discussed above, and in view of dictum laid down in the cited cases, I would not like to interfere in the impugned interim order, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. A.R.K./S-60/L Petition dismissed.