1986 PLP 1686 (MLD)

Nemo for Respondents Nos: 1 and

2. Ch. Muhammad Anwar for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 11th February 1986. This Constitutional petition seeks to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 18‑9‑1982 pronounced by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haroonabad Camp at Fortabbas.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the parties were married inter se and on account of some estrangement, the petitioner went to her parental home. She sought the assistance of the learned Judge, Family Court for the recovery of Rs.7,600, the amount of dower. The respondent resisted her claim and raised a number of pleas which are apparent from the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.7600 from the defendant on account of unpaid dower money? O.P.P. (2) Whether the plaintiff has got locus standi to institute this suit? O. P. P. (3) Whether Punchaitnama fixing dower money is illegal, against facts, fictitious and collusive ? O.P.D. (4) Relief.

3. The plaintiff‑petitioner was directed to produce her evidence for the first time on 15‑10‑1981 and she failed to do so. The suit was procrastinated to 27‑1‑1982 and she repeated her negligence. Then on 19‑6‑1982, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to adduce her evidence conditional on payment of Rs.10 as costs and the suit was fixed for 18‑9‑1982. The petitioner was indolent again and did not produce any evidence on 18‑9‑1982 and the learned Judge Family Court closed her case and dismissed her suit for lack of evidence. An appeal was preferred which was unsuccessful on 29‑11‑1984.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, has contended that there is no provision in the said Act to extend the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. to the cases under the said Act. Section 17 of the Act envisages that only sections 10 and 11 of the C.P.C. apply to the proceedings before the Family Court: The application of the other provisions of the C.P.C. is specifically barred under section 17 of the said Act.

5. It is true that the penal provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. cannot be extended while dealing with a suit under the Family Courts Act, 1964, yet a suitor is not entitled to have as many dates for the production of evidence as he wishes. Syed Shaukat Abbas v. Mst. Bushra Rani and another P L D 1982 Lah. 281 also enunciate the same principle. The logic and the principle of natural justice demand that there should be an end to the accommodation shown by a Judge, Family Court to a party for the production of evidence. In this case, not less than four dates were given to the petitioner to produce he evidence and last opportunity was also granted on the payment of costs. The petitioner could not produce her evidence even after the stern warning of the learned Judge Family Court. Haroonabad who had given the last opportunity for this purpose. The law does not favour an indolent and 1, therefore, do not interfere with the decisions of the learned lower Courts in the exercise of this extraordinary writ) jurisdiction. I dismiss this writ petition with costs.