HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-6-2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by him, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Huma Naseem respondent No 2/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of dower and dowry articles against the petitioner.
During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner instead of filing written statement submitted a'n application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint (copy of which has not been attached with this petition).
3 Learned counsel has contended that the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner had illegally been dismissed by the Judge Family Court, Lahore; that mere perusal of the plaint would show that gold ornaments weighing 25 tollas delivered to the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner at the time of marriage were in possession of the said respondent and that during a dacoity ornaments of gold were robbed. Lastly learned counsel argued that the suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was without any cause of action.
4. I have heard the learned counsel 'and perused the record annexed with this petition. Para. No. 1 of the plaint shows that the gold ornaments of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff were deposited in a locker of UBL (jointly operatable by the parties) which state* was in possession of the defendant/petitioner. It is a case of the, petitioners that said ornaments had been burgled by some bandits. In the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court it cannot be determined as to in whose possession was the key of the locker or whether any party had drawn the said articles from the locker, as it requires recording of evidence. Similarly, an F.I.R. Whose lodger is petitioner himself, cannot furnish a ground for rejection of plaint at initial stage.
5. The contention of the learned counsel that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, prima facie, does not hold ground. The very perusal of the plaint clearly discloses that cause of action had arisen in favour of the respondents 2/plaintiff. For the correct decision of application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Normally assertions/ averments contained in the plaint are to be seen and unless proved otherwise are to be presumed to be correct. Reliance is placed on Prince Aziz- ur-Rashid Abbasi v. Begum Katherine Abbasi and 4 others (2005 MLD1940). Besides, the provisions of C.P.C. Are not applicable before the Judge Family Court which functions under West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964. Section 17 of said Act specifically bars the application of provisions of C.P.C.
Except Sections 10 and 11 of C.P.C. The Judge Family Court functions as a Tribunal and the wisdom of the legislators to oust the provisions of C.P.C. Is to provide speedy mechanism to decide the matrimonial disputes. Therefore, application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. See Ghulam Murtaza v. Additional District Judge (II), D.G. Khan and 2 others (1999 CLC 81). Apart from it, Constitutional petition is not competent against the rejection of application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. In this regard, reliance is placed on a case of Mirza Allah Ditta alias Mirza Javed Akhtar v. Amna Bibi and 2 others (2005 CLC 1478). Even otherwise writ petition is not maintainable against an interim order. To fortify my view reliance is placed upon Khan Muhammad v. Khizer Haya.t and others (2005 M LD 67) and Mohammad Naveed v. Deputy District Officer (Revenue) and 4 others (2005 PLC (C.S. 129). No illegality or procedural irregularity in the impugned order has been pointed out. This petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine . .