FARRUKH LATEEF, J.--- Brief facts. Of this writ petition are that Mst. Bashiran Bibi (respondent No. 3) filed a suit against Zakir (petitioner) who happens to be brother of her deceased husband, for recovery of her dowry or in the alternate its value viz. Rs. 24,000/-.
2. Precisely, her case was that after the death of her husband, the defendant wanted to marry her but she refused and went to her parents whereafter the defendant occupied the property of her deceased husband including the house wherein her dowry is lying. The suit was contested by the defendant; after framing issues and recording evidence thereon it was eventually decreed by the learned Trial Court on 30.10.1997. Defendant's appeal against that judgment/decree was dismissed by Addl. District Judge, Sahiwal on 27.1.2000. The defendant has now filed this Constitutional petition wherein he-has assailed the aforesaid judgment/decree passed by the two Courts below.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Bashiran Bibi did not implead all the legal heirs of her deceased husband in her suit for recovery of dowry, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties but the Courts below did not consider the aforesaid legal aspect. Said contention is absolutely without force and is also misconceived inasmuch as it was alleged that the articles of dowry are in possession of the defendant (petitioner) therefore, he was the only necessary party in the suit; it was next submitted that suit for recovery of dowry is maintainable only against the husband and not against any other person. This argument is also misconceived and totally devoid of any force.
It was next submitted that the suit of Mst. Bashiran Bibi was barred by time. This objection was neither raised at the trial nor was agitated before the Appellate Court; anyhow, ex-facie the suit for recovery of dowry does not appear to be time-barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted further that the suit cannot be instituted against the petitioner in the Family Court but it could be filed in the Civil Court. Suit for recovery of dowry is included in the schedule of Family Courts Act, 1964 and Family Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of such suits.
It was next argued that findings of both the Courts below are against law and facts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not draw my attention as to which material piece of evidence was overlooked or misread by any of the Courts below.
5. A perusal of impugned judgments reveal that they are entirely reasonable. The plaintiff had produced cogent evidence to establish that after the death of her husband she went to the house of her parents whereafter Zakir who happens to be real brother of her deceased husband occupied the house and property of her deceased husband and articles of her dowry were lying in the house of her deceased husband. While appearing the witness-box as DW.1, Zakir had admitted that after the death of his brother the land and house of his said deceased brother are in his possession. The impugned decree was passed by Addl. District Judge .6n 27.1.2000 whereas this writ petition was filed on 7.11.2002 i.e. After a period of about three years on account of which it is also hit by the doctrine of laches. Although learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner is heart patient and due to his ailment this petition could not be filed earlier but no evidence in that behalf in the shape of medical certificate was produced. The impugned judgments/decrees do not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor by any stretch of imagination they can be deemed to have been passed without lawful authority. It was the petitioner who had filed appeal before the Addl. District Judge, hence it does not lie in his mouth to say now that the said Court had no lawful authority to pass the impugned judgment/decree.
6. For the foregoing reasons, petition is hereby dismissed in limine. .