PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. --- The petitioner' through this Constitutional petition calls in question the order/judgment and decree dated 23.2.2008 and dated 5.3.2008 passed by respondent No. 1.
2. Briefly 'stated the facts are that the respondent No. 3 field a family suit on 11.6.2008 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 90,000/- as past maintenance for her for period of 11/2 years for recovery of Rs. 5000/- per month as past maintenance for respondent No. 4 for a period of 10 months and for future for both the respondents at the same rate. The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of Rs.- 30,000/- or value of dowry items and Rs. 52,000/- as costs of gold ornaments.
3. The petitioner contested the same by filing his written statement on 21.2.2008 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. On 23.2.2008 the case was fixed for reconciliation when the petitioner/defendant appeared before the learned Judge Family Court and made a statement that he had already divorced the respondent/plaintiff and was no more his were, and statedly made a conceding statement, therefore, with the consent of the parties, learned Judge Family Court was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.2.2008 which was assailed before the learned, Additional Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the same in limine vide order dated 5.3.2008.
4. It is inter alia contended that both the learned Courts below proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree/orders by mentioning therein facts not admitted by the petitioner and that he was never a consenting party.
Pakistan Current Civil Law Reports (C.L.R.) Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The interim order sheet bar signatures of the parties and the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned Judge Family Court in presence of their counsel. No objecting of what so ever was raised before the learned Judge Family Court nor even before the learned Appellate Court. It appears that the petitioner with a view to prolong litigation and to and to the miseries of respondent i.e. His ex.-were, has raised this issue before this Court for the first time, which is not permissible under the law. Minute examination of record leaves no doubts in my mind that the petitioner was a consenting party before the learned Trial-Court and now is trying to break out there-from. By now it is well-settled principle of law that the parties once having agreed to a particular procedure/mode of decision of a lis and having given consent, cannot be allowed to resile from their commitments subsequently. Even otherwise both the learned Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts which cannot be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction unless the judgment/order impugned suffered from material illegality or non-reading of mis- reading, which ingredients are lacking in th