KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- Mst. Shaheen Akhtar, petitioner, through the present constitutional petition has called in question the order dated 15-2-2007 passed by the. Learned Judge Family Court, Lahore whereby he struck off the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 1 and the order dated 6-9-2007 dismissing application of the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid order dated 15-2-2007.
2.. Briefly the facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for custody of minor, namely, Mst. Arooba Arif before the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing a written reply whereupon the learned trial court framed issues.
Respondent No. 1... Filed affidavits of the witnesses on 23-11-2006 but the counsel for the petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses and the learned Trial Court struck off the right of cross-examination of the petitioner vide order 15-2-2007 whereafter .The petitioner filed an application for recalling the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 6-9-2007, hence the present Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 are illegal, void, arbitrary, perverse, nullity in the eyes of law and are contrary to the facts on record.
He further submits that the learned Judge Family Court should have proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner instead of striking her right of cross-examining the witnesses of respondent No. 1 by invoking the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, CPC which provisions of law are inapplicable in the family suit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned orders.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record. The petitioner was afforded a number of opportunities for cross-examining the witnesses of the respondents but she failed to cross-- examine the witnesses of the respondents, as such, the learned Trial Court had left with, no option but to strike out the right of the petitioner for cross- examining the witnesses of the respondents. .The impugned orders' passed by the learned Trial.
Court area just, fair and call for no interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order by which the petitioner's right to cross-examine the witness was struck off is without jurisdiction is concerned, it is true that there was no provision in the Guardians and Ward Act authorizing the Family Court to close the evidence of a party before it or to strike out right bf cross-examining the witnesses but there is also no provision to the effect that a party's evidence shall not be closed or struck out his right to cross-examine the witnesses even if that party fails to produce evidence, without sufficient cause, despite having availed of several opportunities to do so. Here the question arses that if a Guardian Judge' adjourns a case for hundred times With a view to enabling a party to lead evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses but even then that party does not produce evidence, without any reason whatsoever, will the Guardian Judge not be able-to refuse any more opportunity to the party at fault and proceed to close the evidence or strike out the right of cross- examining the witnesses, as such, the learned Trial Court was, justified to strike off the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent,
7. There is yet another aspect of the case that no doubt the impugned orders are interlocutory orders in the sense that they do not dispose of the whole gamut of dispute between the parties.
Final decision on the suit would be open to appeal by virtue of Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and, therefore, if the petitioner fails before the learned Guardian Court she will be able to assail before the Appellate Court; the orders now being challenged by her. To my mind the orders which have been assailed by means . Of this Constitutional petition, being order of interlocutory nature, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction Reference can be made to Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary S&GAD, Karachi etc. (1996 SCM R 1165).
8. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the instant Constitutional petition is not competent, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with nor order as to costs. .