JUDGMENT CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.~ This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Shariat Court on 26.2.2004 whereby a revision petition filed against the orders passed by the Judge Family Court, Kotli was dismissed.
2. The facts are that Mst. Naheed. Begum, wife of respondent No. 3 Zulqarnain Khan, moved an application for the custody of minors in the Court of Judge Family Court, Kotli on 11.3.2003.
Meanwhile, she applied for temporary custody of the minors through an application which was , allowed. The temporary custody was handed over to Mst. Naheed Begum, the mother of the minors, subject to furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lac) with the direction that the minors shall not be removed from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant therein furnished the bail bond before the Trial Court and the minors were handed over to their mother Mst. Naheed Begum. On the relevant dated i.e. 15.3.2003, neither Mst. Naheed Begum appeared nor the minors were brought before the Court ordered for confiscation of the bail bond executed by the appellant herein through two orders dated 15.3.2003 and 17.5.2003. The aforesaid orders were challenged through a revision petition before the Shariat Court which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. M. Yunus Tahir, the learned counsel representing the appellant, contended that after confiscation of the-bond it was legally required that a notice for recovery of the aforesaid- amount should have been issued to the appellant and thereafter further proceedings in this regard could be made. It was forcefully argued that no such notice was issued, therefore, whole proceedings taken by the Trial Court were illegal as such the order passed in revision by the Shariat Court is also not maintainable.
4.Appellant who did not appear and a report was made that he as left the country, therefore, further proceedings were taken which are perfectly in accordance with law.
5.Ch. M: Reaz Alam, the learned counsel appearing for respondent. No. 3, argued that after confiscation of the bon^ 'notice was duly issued to the
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. It is admitted on behalf of the appellant that he stood a surety and also admitted to have furnished a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,00Q/- whereupon temporary custody of the minor was handed over to Mst. Naheed Begum. It was also admitted that the minors were not produced as per requirement. The learned counsel also did not dispute the correctness of the order whereby the bond was confiscated. The only point raised .By the learned counsel for the appellant was that a notice was required to be issued to the appellant as to why the amount may not be recovered from him. A perusal of the record shows that after confiscation of the bond a notice was issued to the appellant appellannt has been placed on record by the appellant himself. Thereafter, other necessary proceedings were taken as the appellant could not be served