' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The respondent No,1 filed a Suit for Recovery of Dowry Articles, wherein the petitioner/defendant was proceeded against ex parte on 19-1-2005, whereafter the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 was recorded and the . Therespondent No,1 filed an execution petition, the petitioner entered appearance, pursuant to issuing of his non-boilable warrants. Hethereafter filed an application under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, praying that the ex parte decree, dated 18-5-2005, be set aside, while entertaining the application, the respondent No,2 directed the petitioner to provide a bank guarantee in the decretal amount and an injunctive order was issued. The respondent No,1 was directed to file reply, later the petitioner prayed that his application be decided on merits and as he was not in a position to furnish bank guarantee. The injunctive order was vacated on 4-3-2006, and execution proceedings commenced.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the direction to furnish bank guarantee is violative of the principle enunciated in "Abdullah v. Mst. Zubeda Begum and others" 1988 CLC 1631, even otherwise, the proceedings under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, grant an unabridged right to the aggrieved party to file such application, and it is to be decided without imposition of conditions.
3. Despite service, the respondent No,1 did not enter appearance; she therefore was proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order sheet.. The petitioner filed an application under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, seeking the setting aside of the ex parte decree. The Family Court, stayed the execution proceedings directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of decrial amount.
5. Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, is explicit and clear and ordains that the "aggrieved" party can make such, application and plead reasons for absence, in case, the applicant is able to persuade the Court, by praying that his non-appearance was neither contumacious nor deliberate, he can be granted the relief prayed for. There is no condition attached in this context, therefore, the imposition of the condition of bank guarantee upon the petitioner by the respondent No, 2, was not in consonance with law and violative of the principle settled is 1988 CLC 1631 "Abdullah v. Mst. Zubeda Begum etc.". Therefore, this petition is allowed, the impugned order, is set aside, the Family Court is directed to decide the application under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, filed by the petitioner in accordance with law on merits expeditiously.
Case mmanded.