P L D 2002 Lahore 410 (PLP)
ASGHAR MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2002 Lahore 410 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J. |
| Parties | ASGHAR MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Lahore 410 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2002 Lahore 410 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Lahore 410 (PLP) (ASGHAR MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑‑‑‑Ss.' 7, proviso, 10(4) & 11(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Framing of additional issue‑‑‑Powers of Family Court‑‑‑Grievance of the petitioner was that the Family court declined to frame additional issue as desired by him‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Unlike Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Family Court was restrained to formulate issues at later stage as the same was violative of S.11(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which was a mandatory provision of law to summon evidence within three days of framing of issues‑‑‑Family Court might allow any evidence at later stage under proviso to S.7 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, if the same was expedient for justice‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. Javed Ahmad Khan, Advocate
Judgment & Decree
(iii) Relief. .
2. The petitioner has now applied to formulate additional issues as per pleadings of parties in view of preliminary objections to written statement. Application for formulation of additional issues was rejected by the order of learned Judge Family Court, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that is the bounden duty of the Court to formulate issues which are arising out of the pleadings of the parties.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned Judge Family Court vide order dated 23‑1‑2002 has observed that issues have been formulated and Issue No.2 is "Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit?OPD. This issue is sufficient to produce evidence whatsoever, in the presence of said issues no further issue can be framed. Section.10(4) of Family Courts Act. 1964 is re produced as under:‑‑ ‑ "If no compromise or reconciliation is possible the Court shall frame the issues in the case and fix a date for recording of evidence." Section I 1(2) of Family Courts Act, 964 is reproduced as under:
"The Court shall not issue any summons for the appearance of any witness unless within three days of the framing of issues any party intimates the Court that it desires a witness to be summoned through the Court and the Court is satisfied that it is not possible of practicable for such party to produce the witness." These provisions of law show that unlike Civil Procedure Code the Family Court is restrained to formulate issues at later stage as it will violate the provisions of section 11(2) of Family Courts Act, 1964, which is a mandatory provision of law to summon the evidence within three days of framing of issues.
5. Even otherwise under section 7 proviso the Family Court may allow any evidence at any later stage if it is expedient for justice. Issue No.2 lack of cause of action envisages the petitioner's preliminary objection as to the Pin maintainability of present suit, therefore, the order of learned Judge Family Court is not to be interfered in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑460/L Petition dismissed