| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1318 2015 SLD 1318 2015 PLJ 148 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 13718 of 2013, decided on 12.5.2014. DATE of hearing: 12.5.2014.
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.
Sardar Hameed Ullah Sikhani, Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Khuda Bakhsh Door, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
W.P. No. 13718 of 2013, decided on 12.5.2014. DATE of hearing: 12.5.2014.
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.
Sardar Hameed Ullah Sikhani, Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Khuda Bakhsh Door, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
MUHAMMAD IRFAN
VS
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, TAUNSA SHARIF, DISTRICT DERA GHAZI KHAN and another
Law:
Section:
Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)-- ----S. 11(3)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Right of cross-examination of witnesses--Suit for jactitation of marriage--Witness could not be cross examined on account of preoccupation of counsel--Lawyers were observing strike--No mala fide could be ascribed to petitioner for adjournment--Validity--Conduct of defendant shows that he was not interested in making cross-examination--High Court cannot approve of following observation made in impugned order--Right of cross-examination has been provided for in Section 11(3) of Family Courts Act, 1964--It is most valuable right and if this right is be taken away, there must be compelling and sound reasons to exercise discretion against a party--It cannot be said that conduct of petitioner was such that Court was not to show his indulgence by allowing him further time to cross-examine witnesses produced by plaintiff, particularly when counsel for defendant/petitioner was in attendance when impugned order was passed--If witnesses produced by plaintiff are in attendance no further opportunity shall be provided to petitioner to carry out cross-examination. [Pp. 150 & 151] A, B, C, D & E Order Through this writ petition, the petitioner assailed the validity of the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the learned Judge Family Court. Taunsa Sharif, District Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby his right of cross-examination of the witnesses produced by Mst. Shaheen Bibi, Respondent No. 2/plaintifi was closed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Mst. Shaheen Bibi, Respondent No. 2 instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner. In the alternative, she asked for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of 'khula'. 3. The petitioner put in an appearance and filed written statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint filed by Mst. Shaheen Bibi, the aforementioned. 4. After framing the necessary issues, the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 2 was called upon to produce evidence in support of her assertions made in the plaint. As a result, she herself appeared as PW-1 and produced Ghulam Muhammad as PW2. 5. The examination-in-chief of PW-1 and…
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