ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Form No.:HCJC/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No:
Muhammad Amin
WP No.29715-2014
Versus
S.No. of
Date of
order/
order/
Proceeding Proceeding
Najma Parveen etc
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties of counsel, where necessary.
11.11.2014 Mr.Muhammad Azam Warraich, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Petitioner
has
invoked
the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 199 to impugn the order dated
22.5.2014 passed by learned Family Judge
Pasrur whereby petitioner’s right to file
written statement was struck of.
2.
It is argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner that impugned order is passed in a
slipshod manner without application of
judicious
mind
or comprehending the
questions of law and facts involved in this
case; that learned trial Court wrongly
exercised the jurisdiction while passing the
impugned order which is liable to set aside.
3.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
4.
Succinctly
facts
leading
to
this
petition are that Najma Parveen respondent
has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage
and recovery of dowry articles against the
petitioner on 26.11.2013. Process server
Writ Petition No.29715-2014
reported
that
petitioner
2
was
residing
abroad
consequently
proclamation in the newspaper was issued besides issuing process of
the Court through registered post. On 24.3.2014 M.Fayyaz Bajwa
Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner. The same
day copies of the plaint etc. were served upon to learned counsel for
the petitioner and the case was fixed for 16.4.2014. On the said date
written statement was not filed and request for adjournment was made
by learned counsel for the petitioner. Another request was allowed
and case was adjourned for filing of written statement for 08.5.2014.
On the said date learned counsel for the petitioner made request for an
adjournment for filing of written statement which was allowed with a
caution of last opportunity and a warning that no further adjournment
would be given and the case was adjourned for 22.5.2014. On the said
date written statement was not filed consequently through impugned
order petitioner’s right of filing written statement was struck of.
5.
Section 8(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act
1964 provides that on presentation of plaint to the Family Court it
shall fix a date of not more than thirty days for the appearance of the
defendant. Section 9 of the Act (ibid) further provides that on the date
fixed under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 8, the plaintiff and
the defendant shall appear before the Family Court and the defendant
shall file his written statement. This section further stipulates that in
case of default the Family Court may proceed ex-parte.
6.
In this case record transpires that after petitioner’s
appearance before the Court through counsel on 24.3.2014 petitioner
availed as many as five opportunities in sixty days up till 22.5.2014
but miserably failed to file the written statement despite caution of last
opportunity and specific warning. It is well settled by now that Family
Court Act has been enacted for the expeditious settlement and
disposal of disputes relating to the family affairs. Needless to say that
conduct of a party is relevant factor in the administration of justice. In
case of contumacious default of the petitioner to file written statement
the Family Court therefore acted well within its jurisdiction to strike
Writ Petition No.29715-2014
3
of the petitioner’s right to file the written statement for orderly
dispensation of justice under the Act.
7.
Besides petitioner has not been able to advance any
cogent reason for his failure in filing the written statement despite
availing six opportunities within a period of sixty days since his
appearance before the Court. In view of the above I do not find any
legal infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order passed by learned Judge Family Court. Petitioner has
no cause to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8.
For the above reasons, this constitutional petition having
no merit is dismissed in limine.
(ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE
‘Ejaz’
`