' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.-- Through ex parte judgment and decree dated 17-10-2006 the learned Judge Family Court Sargodha decreed the suit for the dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner.
' On 12-12-2006, an application for recalling and setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 17-10-2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Judge Family Court without seeking a reply from Respondent No,1 dismissed the application through order dated 13-12-2006 on the ground that there was no provision for the review in the special law. This order dated 13-12- 2006 has been challenged in the present constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel were heard.
4. The short controversy is as to whether the impugned order dated 13-12-2006 treating the petitioner's application for recalling the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 17-10-2006 as the review application and dismissing the same as such, was without lawful authority or not. The learned counsel for Respondent No,1 was confronted with the pleadings of the petitioner in his application which was for recalling the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 17-10-2006 and for reviewing {{URDU TEXT}} the dissolution of marriage decreed by the Court. The learned counsel for Respondent No,1 had no answer to the Court query that:---
(i) the application of the petitioner had clearly sought recalling of and setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, though in the same sequence, superfluous word "Nazar Sani" was also used by the petitioner; and
(ii) even if it is presumed that the application was for the review of ex parte judgment and decree dated 17-10-2006, the same could have been treated by the Court as an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree.
5. This Court believes that the employment of inapt terms and superfluous words in the pleadings by the parties cannot strip the parties of their vested rights and remedies. The words, and terms in the , pleadings should be read in the perspective of the case assertion to advance the adjudicating process that to stifle the vested rights.
6. In the present case the learned Judge Family Court appears not to have even read the application of the petitioner. The application is clear its meaning context and words. It seeks setting aside and recalling of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 17-10-2006. The learned Judge Family Court selectively used the odd word 4Nazar Sani" and rejected the petitioner's application in limine isolating the assertions and pleadings contained therein. The superficial treatment to this matter by the learned Civil Judge classically brings out the misapplication of the law. Non- consideration of the case and the consequent non-performance of the duty as a Judge who was minimally obligated to read, consider and then decide the matter. The requirements of law and justice have been overlooked. Pleadings have been put aside. Law has been treated as inexistent and the procedure as inapplicable. Justice has thus been patently traversed. This Court regrets that Mr. Nadeem Tahir Syed, Judge Family Court/Civil Judge, 1st Class, Sargodha has not only misexercised his jurisdiction but has also failed to do the basic duty as a Judge. The impugned order, dated 13-12-2006 is patently without lawful authority and is declared to be of no legal effect.
7. This petition is accepted in the above terms. The petitioner's application shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided strictly in accordance with the law. The parties shall appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge Sargodha on 19-5-2007. The learned Senior Civil Judge'may hear the parties and decide the case himself or may assign the same to any learned Civil Judge competent to hear and adjudicate upon the case. It is nevertheless directed to inform Mr. Nadeem Tahir Syed, Judge Family Court/Civil Judge 1st Class Sargodha of the observations made by this Court in this judgment. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for respondent No,l has very wisely conceded the case of the petitioner, no costs shall be imposed though this Court is of the opinion that this is a case of exemplary costs.