2004 PLP 325 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TALAGANG and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 325 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TALAGANG and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 325 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 325 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 325 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TALAGANG and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Muhammad Ansar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
R.6
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99
Constitutional petition- Objection to place of suing not raised before Family Court in written statement, but raised for the first time in Constitutional petition before High Court-- Validity
Such objection must be taken at the earliest and certainly before framing of issues
Such general rule contained in C. P. C., being primarily a rule of equity, would also apply to the Family Court
Said objection having not been raised before Family Court, High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition in limine.
Judgment & Decree
R.6
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99
Constitutional petition- Objection to place of suing not raised before Family Court in written statement, but raised for the first time in Constitutional petition before High Court-- Validity
Such objection must be taken at the earliest and certainly before framing of issues
Such general rule contained in C. P. C., being primarily a rule of equity, would also apply to the Family Court
Said objection having not been raised before Family Court, High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition in limine. Mirza Muhammad Ansar for Petitioner. The petitioner was married to respondent No.3. Out of this wedlock a son Muhammad Zohaib was born on 16-12-1999. On 7-5-2002 respondent No.3 filed an, application for the custody of said child. According to her the child had been removed by the petitioner illegally from her custody. In response the petitioner stated that respondent had been continuously leaving his house and thereby leaving child. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court allowed the 'application on 27-2-2003. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a, learned Additional District Judge, Talagang, on 18-9-2003.
2. Learned counsel contends that the learned Judge Family Court who conducted the trial had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and as such impugned orders are void.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. I find that according to the plaint the address of the petitioner is stated to be in Tehsil Talagang where the case was tried. I do not find any objection in the written statement filed in the court of learned Judge at Talagang, that he has no jurisdiction or for that matter the address of the petitioner is incorrectly given. On the other hand, I find that the written statement is signed and verified by him on oath and his entire particulars including his address at Talagang are given in the, written statement itself. He appeared in the witness-box as R.W.1 on 26-10-2000 and gave his address as Tehsil Talagang.
4. I, therefore, find that this objection was never raised before the learned trial Court. Needless to state that an objection as to place of suing is to be taken at the earliest and certainly before the framing of' issues. This general rule contained in C.P.C. should also apply to Family Court being primarily a rule of equity. No other point has been urged. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./M-2367 Petition dismissed