2010 PLP 790 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

This constitutional petition has been preferred against the order, dated 27-4-2005 passed by respondent No.3 claiming that the petitioner filed a petition under section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act for custody of three children against the respondent. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge Pakpattan vide order, dated 14-5-1999 allowed the application ex parte and custody of three minor children were handed over to the petitioner. These three minor children remain in the custody of the petitioner for three years when after lapse of three years the respondent forcibly taken the custody of children from the petitioner. The petitioner applied for restoration of custody of three minors and also filed an application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent No.1. The respondent submitted reply to the said application and the learned Guardian Judge passed the following order:-- "The application is disposed of and issue No.1 framed on 14-2-2005 is decided accordingly as learned counsel for applicant does not press upon application to the extent of punishment to the respondent/alleged contemnor. The respondent, if so advised can file application for setting aside ex pate decree in pursuance of which minors have been ordered to be delivered to the decree holder and she can also seek restitution of the minors if that decree is set aside, in accordance with law." The learned respondent No.2 vide order, dated 13-4-2005 ordered the restoration of custody of the minors to Mst. Nasim Bibi.

2. The respondent No.1 feeling aggrieved of the order, dated 13-4-2005 preferred an appeal. The said appeal was allowed and case was remanded vide order, dated 27-4-2005. The said order has been assailed through the present petition.

3. The respondent appeared but subsequently vide order, dated 7-5-2007 proceeded ex parte. However, today learned counsel for the respondent is present and I allow him to address the arguments.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the final decree has been passed and the litigation between the parties has been finalized, as such the present proceedings became infructuous being against an interim order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits the said position but contends that the present writ petition was filed prior to the passing of final order by the learned trial Court and as such this writ petition can proceed.

6. As the present writ petition is against the interim order which stand emerged in final order passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction, hence, this writ petition has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. A.R.K./J-6/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.