2006 PLP 593 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Mst. Siraj Begum, respondent No.1, instituted suit against her husband Muhammad Zaman, petitioner, before Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Family Court, Charsadda for recovery of gold ornaments weighing 7 Tolas and possession of 4 Kanals of agricultural land and a house, situate in Deh Katozai, Charsadda. It was averred in the plaint that petitioner married respondent No.1 in consideration of dower and in this respect a deed was executed between the parties on 14-9-1971. Two children were born but of the wedlock. Unfortunately the petitioner contracted second marriage and expelled respondent No.1 of his house and refused to pay dower. The suit was resisted and allegations of respondent No.1 were controverted. The relevant issues were framed. After recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree, dated 15-2-2005, partially decreed the suit qua recovery of five Tolas of gold ornaments, four Kanals agricultural land and residential house in Deh "Katozai" Charsadda. An appeal was preferred there against which was partially accepted on 6-7-2005 by Additional District Judge, Charsadda.

2. Muhammad Zaman petitioner, feeling dissatisfied, has filed instant writ petition, which is before us for consideration.

3. Ms. Shahnaz Hameed Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner, assailed the correctness of impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below and attempted to argue that the material on the file has not been appreciated in its true perspective; that the Courts below have overlooked the material favouring the petitioner and discarded the same in a manner uncalled for an unwarranted in law and the alleged `Mahar Nama' dated 14-9-1971 has been taken into consideration in absence of supportive evidence, which has resulted in manifest injustice. Concluding the arguments, it was maintained, that gold ornaments were given to respondent No.1 by the petitioner at the time of marriage and .as such, the petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel do not carry weight. Both the Courts below have concurrently found respondent No.1 entitled for the recovery of gold ornaments weighing five Tolas and possession of agricultural land and residential house. The learned counsel has not been able to successfully challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. She has also failed to show that the material on record has not been appreciated in a legal manner and the claim of respondent No.1 has been accepted mechanically without application of judicial mind. Sufficient material is available on record in support of the claim of respondent No.1. No reliable evidence has been produced in rebuttal. Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of fact, even if on appraisal of evidence it was possible to reach to a different conclusion, unless it was shown that such findings by the lower Court suffered from the vice of misreading or non-reading of evidence, which had affected the findings on merit. In Export Promotion Bureau and others v. Qaiser Shafiullah 1994 SCMR 859, it was held:-- "Constitutional jurisdiction is not designed and intended to be used as a substitute for a regular appeal or to be equated with a regular appeal. In a constitutional petition the High Court cannot interfere with a finding of fact merely on the ground that the reasons which found favour with the authority whose order is under scrutiny were not such which would have been accepted by the High Court. The constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to rectify jurisdictional defects. It is to be pressed into service against an order which is without jurisdiction or tainted with malice or is violative of a provision of the Constitution/ Law and not to correct a finding of fact. However, even in constitutional jurisdiction the High Court may interfere with a finding of fact, if it is founded on no evidence or is contrary to the evidence."

5. Pursuant to above, finding no substance in this writ petition, we dismiss the same in limine. H.B.T./21/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.