| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 634 2006 SLD 634 2006 MLD 420 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 4113 of 2005, decided & hearing on 14-9-2005.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE
Naveed Ahmed Khawaja for Petitioner. Nasim Ullah Khan Niazi for
Respondent No. 2.
Writ Petition No. 4113 of 2005, decided & hearing on 14-9-2005.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE
Naveed Ahmed Khawaja for Petitioner. Nasim Ullah Khan Niazi for
Respondent No. 2.
NUSRAT ALI
VS
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, TEHSIL CHINIOT, DISTRICT JHANG AND ANOTHER
Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 5,8,9,11
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss. 5, Sched & 8, 9 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Striking off defence---Defendant, who was served through citation in newspaper, having failed to appear before the Court, was proceeded against ex parte---Defendant appeared on same day before Family Court and moved application for setting aside ex parte order, which order was set aside subject to payment of costs and case was adjourned for filing of written statement---Defendant, on the adjourned hearing date: failed to appear before Family Court due to his sickness, but his counsel attempted to file written statement without paying amount of costs---Request of counsel of defendant for payment of costs made on next date was declined and his defence was struck---Validity---No doubt, order of setting aside of ex parte proceedings against defendant was conditional on payment of costs, but Family Court had acted in haste in striking off defence of defendant despite the fact that his counsel was ready with the written statement to file---Request of counsel for defendant for payment of costs on next hearing date: was improperly turned down by Family Court, though defendant was reported to be sick and in his absence, his counsel was not in a position to pay awarded costs and he had assured that the same could be paid on next hearing date: ---Statement of counsel of defendant should have been believed and by entertaining written statement on behalf of defendant for which purpose suit was fixed, payment of costs needed to have been deferred---Said treatment needed to have been meted out in order to dispense justice between the parties---Counsel for plaintiff could not point out any prejudice to have been caused to the rights of his client, had the case been adjourned or adjudicated upon---Disputes among parties should be attempted to be determined/decided on merits instead of knocking out any of them on technicalities---Defence of defendant having been struck off on date which was the first date fixed for filing written statement, he was not given fair opportunity to comply…
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