P L D 1992 Karachi 302 (PLP)
SAEEDUDDIN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus IIIRD SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (EAST), KARACHI
| Citation | P L D 1992 Karachi 302 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Imam Ali G. Kazi, J |
| Parties | SAEEDUDDIN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus IIIRD SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (EAST), KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Karachi 302 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Karachi 302 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Imam Ali G. Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Karachi 302 (PLP) (SAEEDUDDIN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus IIIRD SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (EAST), KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Waqar Hussain for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ R.4(1)~‑‑Filing of family suit by agent of female, competency ‑‑‑ Provision of .R.4(l), West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, postulates that where family suit was filed by female herself same could also be filed on her behalf by her agent. (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ R.4(2) ‑‑‑ Word "*all" as used in S.4(2), West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 ‑‑‑ Connotation ‑‑‑ Non‑compliance of provision of R.4(2), West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 ‑‑‑ Effect ‑‑‑ Although word "shall" has been used in S.4(2) in West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1905, with regard to riling of suit by female, yet nowhere in Rules any provision has been made that in case of non‑compliance of such rule, penalty of rejection of plaint or any other penalty would follow ‑‑‑‑ In absence of any penal provision in the Rules in case of non‑' compliance of R.4, West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, sub‑rule.(2) of RA, thereof, would be taken to be directory in nature.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Tasleem Aslam. Khan the respondent No.2 herein has riled suit for dissolution of her marriage to petitioner, Saceduddin, in the Court of 111rd Senior Civil Judge (Family Judge), Karachi (East). Mr. M.Waqar Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner makes a grievance that in the title of the suit riled by Respondent No.2 she has mentioned address of the office of her Advocate as her address. He, therefore, riled an application before the Family Judge seeking rejection of, the plaint on that ground. He contends that the plaint is to be rejected as Rule 4 of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965 has not been complied with by giving correct address. According to him provision contained in sub‑rule 2(c) of Rule 4 is mandatory and non‑compliance will entail the penalty of rejection of the plaint. Since tile Family Judge has rejected his application seeking rejection of plaint by his order passed on 1st December, 1991 he has riled this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeking annulment of the said order. Rule 4(l) of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965 provides A that in case where family suit is riled by a female it can also be riled on her behalf by her agent. No doubt Sub‑rule (2) contains "shall" but nowhere in the Rules any provision is made that in case of non‑compliance of such rule the penalty of rejection of the plaint or any other penalty shall follow. In absence of any penal provision in the Rules in case of non compliance of Rule 4 of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1.905, Sub‑rule (2) will be taken to be directory in nature. No other ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 oi the Constitution by this Court has been pointed out by the Advocate, for the petitioner. The petition is dismissed in limine A.A./S‑877/K Petition dismissed