2008 PLP 1566 (CLC)
TALIB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY Court, TEHSIL KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI and another-Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1566 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TALIB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY Court, TEHSIL KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI and another-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1566 (CLC)?
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 2008 PLP 1566 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1566 (CLC) (TALIB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY Court, TEHSIL KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI and another-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mubashar Hassan Gillani for Petitioner.
- Qamar Hameed Hashmi for Respondent No.2.
- 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application could not be dismissed on 24-6-2004 as the date was fixed for submission of reply of the writ petitioner and not for hearing of the case. Whereas learned counsel for respondents submits that the writ petitioner after knowing that the application was dismissed on 24-.6-2004 had not filed any application for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered on 24-6-2004. So order dated 15-12-2004 cannot be assailed through this writ petition as the original order dated 24-6-2004 has been passed with legal justification.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Suit for recovery of dowry--Ex parte decree
Setting aside of
Suit was decreed ex parte and application for setting aside ex parte decree filed after about 3 years of judgment and decree of the Trial Court during execution proceedings was dismissed
Judgment-debtor had not adduced any reason as to why he was not present when his application for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed
Without giving any reason, judgment-debtor, who had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, could not get any relief from the High Court as the decree which was passed three years before was in field and was not set aside
No application for setting aside ex parte proceedings having been filed, constitutional petition, filed straightaway against impugned order, was not competent.
Judgment & Decree
SH. HAKIM ALI, J.
Mst. Amir Mai had filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative awarding of decree for Rs.74,
500. In the suit, defendant was tried to be served through process of Court but had not appeared even proclamation in the newspaper was published and he was proceeded against ex parte. So after recording ex parte evidence, the suit was decreed on 20-4-2001 to the extent of Rs.25,
000. For execution of that decree, Mst. Amir Mai filed execution petition before learned judge Family Court on 17-4-2004. The judgment-debtor was arrested and was produced before the learned Executing Court on 16-4-2004. The learned Executing Court released the judgment-debtor after furnishing surety bond to the tune of decretal amount uptil 17-4-2004. On 17-4-2004, an application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed which was dismissed on 24-6-2004, when the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment-debtor had not appeared in the Court. No application was filed to set aside the aforesaid ex parte proceedings. On the other hand, Judge Family Court directed the judgment-debtor to pay decretal amount otherwise warrant of arrest would be issued through police.
2. Aggrieved from that order dated 15-12-2004 the instant writ petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor. Order dated 24-6-2004 which had dismissed the application for setting aside was being assailed also in the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application could not be dismissed on 24-6-2004 as the date was fixed for submission of reply of the writ petitioner and not for hearing of the case. Whereas learned counsel for respondents submits that the writ petitioner after knowing that the application was dismissed on 24-.6-2004 had not filed any application for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered on 24-6-2004. So order dated 15-12-2004 cannot be assailed through this writ petition as the original order dated 24-6-2004 has been passed with legal justification.
4. After considering the arguments of both the learned counsel, I have found that the petitioner has not adduced any reason as to why he was not present on 24-6-2004. There must have been some reason for absence of the petitioner on that date. Without giving any reason, the writ petitioner who has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot get any relief from this Court as the decree which was passed in the year 2001 is still in field and not set aside. There must have been an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered on 24-6-2004. As no application has been filed, therefore straightaway this writ petition against above said order is not competent. So, the writ petition is dismissed. H.B.T./T-17/L Petition dismissed: