2010 PLP 843 (CLC)

KHALIL AHMAD, J.

This order will dispose of Writ Petition No.11421 of 2008 and W.P.No.11422 of 2008 as the common question of law and facts is involved in both these petitions.

2. Marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 26-4-1991 according to Muslim rites and out of the wedlock Muhammad Hanan and Muhammad Waleed were born. Respondent No.1 on 31-7-2006 filed a suit for recovery of articles of dowry or its value of Rs.3,50,

000. The suit was contested by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 also filed suit for maintenance. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and framed the following consolidated issues:--

1. Whether the plaintiff Mst. Memoona Nazli is entitled to the decree for return of dowry articles as per list attached with the plaint on the basis of averments made therein? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her word and conduct to file the suits? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff in suit No.148 is entitled to recover arrears of past maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,40,000? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff in suit No.148 is entitled to receive past and future maintenance from the defendant @ Rs.5,000 per months per head? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff in suit No.148 has got no cause of action? OPD.

7. Relief.

3. Respondent produced her evidence whereafter petitioner was directed to produce his evidence. Petitioner did not produce his evidence and as such his right to produce evidence was closed. The learned trial Court vide order dated 25-7-2008 fixed the case for post trial reconciliation on 29-7-2008.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner was not given proper opportunity to produce evidences; that the petitioner had deposited the diet money and process fee for summoning of the witnesses but the learned trial Court without any legal justification passed the impugned order; that brother of the petitioner was in hospital but this aspect of the case was totally ignored; his right to produce evidence was closed without any legal justification.

5. It is on record that petitioner earlier filed T.A. No.277-C of 2008 which was dismissed for non-appearance on 4-11-2008. The petitioner summoned the witnesses on 25-6-2008, process fee was deposited by him on 28-6-2008 and the case was fixed for 5-7-2008. Again the witnesses were summoned and the case was fixed for 12-7-2008.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner on 12-7-2008 stated that he will produce the witnesses on his own on the next date of hearing and the case was fixed for 19-7-2008. Again a request was made and on the payment of cost of Rs.300 last opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce the evidence 22-7-2008. Learned counsel for petitioner on 22-7-2008 stated that evidence of the petitioners is not available as brother of the petitioner was sick. Learned trial Court ordered that under the direction of this Court family case was to be decided by 31-7-2008 and as such adjournment for two weeks was not possible and petitioner was directed to produce evidence on 28-7-2008. Petitioner could not produce his evidence and as such his right to produce the evidence was closed on the said date.

7. The family matters are to be decided expeditiously. This Court has given a direction that family maters be decided expeditiously. Petitioner was informed by the trial Court of this direction and given a last opportunity to produce his evidence. He failed to produce his evidence and as such his right to produce evidence was closed by the learned trial Court which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The same are upheld and this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-566/L Petition dismissed.