| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2047 2016 SLD 2047 2016 PLJ 365 |
W.P. No. 3646 of 2009, decision Date : 17.9.2015. Heard on: 17.9.2015.
SHAHID MUBEEN, JUSTICE
Mr. Tariq Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Saleem Akhtar Warraich, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
MST. BASHIRAN BIBI
VS
ADJ, ETC.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---.--- ---.---Art. 199---.---Constitutional petition---.---Suit for recovery of dowry article, dismissal of---.---Dowry article was proved through evidence---.---List of dowry article was not exhibited---.---Validity---.---Statement of witnesses---.---Dowry articles were received back in presence of witnesses as petitioner do not want to live with husband hence, dowry articles were taken back through panchayat as well as relatives---.---Iqrar nama bears his thumb impression---.---No illegality with material irregularity in impugned and decree---.---Petitioner had failed to point out any jurisdictional error and illegality in impugned and decree passed by appellate Court---.---Petition was dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SHAHID MUBEEN, JUSTICE:---.--- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of impugned judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009 passed by learned Additional District judge, chichawatni. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of dowry articles of alternative Rs. 2,40,000/-. The suit was resisted by Respondent No. 2 by filing written statement. The controversy led to the framing of following issues:---.--- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of dowry Articles as per list annexed with the plaint or alternative Rs. 2,40,000/- as prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit and suit to the extent of Defendant No. 2 is triable by the Civil Court Tandlianwala? OPP (iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD (iv) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and defendant is entitled for compensatory costs under Section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD (v) Relief. 3. The parties led their evidence pro and contra to prove their respective contentions. The suit of the petitioner was partially decreed to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of dowry articles. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009 and the suit of the petitioner for recovery of dowry articles was dismissed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492