ORDER.
The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Hafizabad whereby the suit for the return of articles of dowry filed by Mst. Zahida Perveen Respondent No, -3 on the basis of special Oath on the Holy Quran by her brother, namely, Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 2 as offered by the petitioner was decreed in the sum of Rs, 2,87,950/-and the judgment of the learned Distt. Judge Hafizabad dated 6.12.2006 reducing the decretal amount as determined by the learned Judge Family Court from Rs, 2,87,950/- to Rs, 2,00,000/-.
2. The facts in brief that Mst. Zahida Perveen alongwith her minor children filed a joint suit against the petitioner for dissolution of marriage, return of her dowry articles valuing Rs, 2,87,950/- and also for recovery of maintenance for her as well as her minor children. The petitioner contested the suit and the learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as man as 4 issues and directed the parties to lead their evidence. However, during the trial when the statement of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.2) brother of Mst. Zahida Perveen was being recorded, an offer was made on behalf of the petitioner, that if the said P.W. brother of Respondent No, 3 stated on Oath that the ornaments and dowry articles had not been returned to Mst. Zahida Parveen Respondent No, 3 through him, then the suit to the extent of recovery of dowry articles be decreed. This offer was accepted by Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 2 who took special Oath as per offer, therefore, the learned Judge Family Court on 8.9.2006 decreed the suit in favour of Mst. Zahida Parveen for Rs, 2,87,950/-.
Feeling aggrieved of the said decree, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned Distt.
Judge Hafizabad. During the hearing of the appeal the petitioner did not contest the decree and only requested for modification of the decree of the learned trial Court by reducing the decretal amount from Rs, 2,87,950/- to the tune of Rs, 2,00,000/-. The learned Appellate Court after obtaining the signatures of the petitioner as well as the signatures of his learned counsel, namely, Mr. Dost Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate on the order sheet disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 6.12.2006 and reduced the decretal amount as per agreement between the parties. The above-mentioned; orders/judgments and decrees have now been challenged through this constitutional petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 8.9.2006 when Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 2 was offered to make a statement on oath neither the petitioner himself was present before the learned Judge Family Court nor had he imparted instructions to his learned counsel for the purpose, therefore, offer made by his learned counsel was not binding upon the petitioner and the decision of the suit to the extent of recovery of dowry articles on the basis of special Oath , was illegal and without lawful authority. Further submits that the learned Distt. Judge while deciding the appeal on the basis of the agreement and reducing the decretal amount from Rs, 2,87,950/- to Rs, 2,00,000/- did not record the, statement of the petitioner, and the signatures of the petitioner were not taken with his free consent. He has also submitted that one would be at a loss to understand that the petitioner would request for reduction of Rs, 87,950/- only, which does not appeal to reason, whereas, the petitioner was challenging the very decrees of the learned Judge Family Court, therefore, both the orders/ judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below were not binding on the petitioner which need to be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for its decision on merits.
4. Arguments heard and record perused. Before proceeding in the matter, it may be noted that the impugned order was passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Hafizabad on 6.12.2006 and the petitioner did not challenge the same and kept mum till date when he suddenly woke up and filed the present constitutional petition. When questioned about this unexplained delay the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since both the judgments of the Courts below were without jurisdiction, therefore, the question of laches on the part of the petitioner would not arise and even if the petitioner remained silent from 6.12.2006 till date, this constitutional 'petition can still be decided on merits.
5. Although writ jurisdiction is not covered by any period of limitation and the question of laches as held by Jawad Mir Muhammad and others vs. Haroon Mirza, and others (PLD 2007 S.C. 472) per se is not a bar to the constitutional jurisdiction and question of delay in filing would have to be examined with reference to the facts of each case, but in the view of said judgment the question of delay in filing constitutional petition has to be given serious consideration and unless a satisfactory and plausible explanation was forthcoming for delay in filing the 'constitutional petition, the same cannot be ignored subject to facts and circumstances of each case. Since as indicated above the trial Court proceeded to decide the suit of Respondent No, 3 in the light of the offer made by the counsel for the petitioner and accepted by the respondent, therefore, the petitioner from this conduct is estopped to file the present constitutional petition. It is established principle of law that a duly constituted attorney/counsel has the implied authority to make offer for the decision of a case through of course legal manner and in case the petitioner feels that his learned counsel had given any consent for the decision of the suit without having authority even then the said offer given by the learned counsel is binding on the petitioner and the petitioner cannot wriggle out by asserting that the said offer was neither with his consent nor with his authority. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge reducing the decretal amount from Rs, 2,87,950/- to Rs, 2,00,000/- was passed in presence of the petitioner as also his counsel and that too after obtaining the signatures on the order sheet, therefore, the same can also not be brushed aside on the mere assertion that the said agreement was not made by the petitioner or he agreed to the decision of the appeal in the manner in which the same was decided by the learned Additional District Judge.
Besides the above discussion one still wonders as to why the petitioner remained silent from 6.12.2006 till date and did not challenge the same before this Court. This conduct of the petitioner amounts to acquiescence as well as laches on his part and in the light of the above said judgments of the learned lower Courts, mere assertion of the petitioner cannot be given much weight which even otherwise goes against the record carrying presumption of truth. I am therefore of the view that this petition not only on merits but also on the basis of laches merits to be dismissed in limine. Order accordingly.