' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Through this constitution petition the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No,2 i,e, XVI-Civil & Family Judge, Karachi-South, dated 1-2-2010 whereby after filing of written statement matter was posted to 13-2-2010 for pre-trial of the parties.
' The facts leading to this petition are in short stated as under:-- ' That the petitioner was married with respondent No, 1 on 17-12-1997 according to Muslim Family Law. It is the case of respondent No,1 before the Family Judge that the dowry amount of Rs,1,00,000 was fixed. After marriage Rukhsati took place but parties could not live together happily which forced the respondent No,1 to file a suit for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula and maintenance for self and two minors. Such suit is being contested by the present petitioner by filing his written-statement. From the record it appears that defendants/petitioner filed written- statement on 20-1-2010 copy whereof was supplied to plaintiff/respondent No,1 and thereafter the matter was taken-up in Court on 1-2-2010 fixing the pre-trial of the parties on 13-2-2010. This order has been questioned through this petition. When learned counsel was asked at the very outset that how this petition is maintainable as petitioner appears to be not an aggrieved party as required under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, learned counsel submitted that since pre-trial is being held by the learned Family Court there is likelihood that if pre-trial fails the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No,1 shall be dissolved by the learned Family Court. The attention of learned counsel for the petitioner was invited to the provisions of section 10 of the West Pakistan Family Courts, Act, 1964, (hereinafter called Act), which are quoted hereunder:-- "10. Pre-trial proceedings. (1) When the written statement is filed, the Court shall fix an early date for a pre-trial hearing of the case.
(2) On the date so fixed, the Court shall examine the plaint, the written statement (if any) and the precis of evidence and documents filed by the parties and shall also, if it so deems fit hear the parties, and their counsel.
(3) At the pre-trial, the Court shall ascertain the points at issue between the parties and attempt to effect a compromise or reconciliation between the parties, if this be possible.
(4) If no compromise or reconciliation is possible the Courts shall frame the issues in the case and fix date for the recording of the evidence: ' Provided that notwithstanding any decision or judgment of any Court or Tribunal, the Family Court in a suit for dissolution of marriage, if reconciliation fails, shall pass decree for dissolution of marriage forthwith and also restore the husband the Haq Mehr received by the wife in consideration of marriage at the time of marriage."
' From the reading of above quoted section it appears that subsection (3) of section 10 of the Act provides that at the trial, the Court shall ascertain the points at issue between the parties and attempt to effect a compromise or reconciliation between the parties, if this be possible.
Subsection (4) of section 10 of the Act further provides that if no compromise or reconciliation is possible the Court shall frame the issues in the case and fix date for the recording of the evidence.
'A bare reading of the above provision further shows that it is the statutory duty of learned Family Judge that after filing of written-statement try to settle the dispute between the parties at the pre- trial petition bearing ROR No,1142/1997 before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was accepted. Petitioner alleged that the petitioners/plaintiff assailed order dated 29-9-1999 through declaratory suit in the Court of Civil Judge Vehari; that respondent No,3 resisted the suit filed written statement separately controverted factual aspects and also took legal objections. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed.
Issues.
1. Whether the order dated 29-9-1999 is illegal, against facts, void, hence, liable to be cancelled"
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are allottees in possession of the disputed Ihata" OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
4. Whether the civil Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct from filing the suit? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff have come to the Court with unclean hands and the defendants are entitled for special costs?
7. Relief.
' Both the parties adduced their evidence oral as well as documentary in support of their respective contentions. The plaintiff-petitioner produced Muhammad Arif Patwari who appeared as P.W.1 and produced rappat rozenamcha No,641 Exh.P-1. Muhammad Younas appeared as P.W.2 and deposed that suit Ihata No,64 was allotteed to the plaintiff-petitioners and they placed Arore therein. Allah Ditta P.W.3 corroborated the statement of P.W.2. Muhammad Sharif one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.4 and deposed that Ihata in question was allotteed to the plaintiffs in presence of the witnesses and also in presence of the defendant. In documentary evidence the plaintiffs- petitioners also placed have also produced copy of order dated 17-4-1996 Exh.P.2, copy of order passed by ACC, Multan Exh. P-3, copy of order of MBOR Exh.P.4, copy of mutation No,11 dated 28-8- 1996 Exh.P-5, copy of register record of right 1997-98 Exh.P.6 and copy of challan Form No,32 (three copies) Exh.P.7.
3. In rebuttal the defendant No,3 appeared as D.W.1 and deposed that he is in possession of the suit Ihata since 1947. Muhammad Azam D.W.2 and Amanat Ali D.W.3 corroborated the statement of D.W.1. The respondents/defendants produced register record of right for the year 1997-98 as Exh.D- 1, copy of order of Board of Revenue dated 29-9-1999 as Exh.D-3, copy of register record of rights 1997-98 as Exh.D-2 and reports of Field Staff of Revenue Department Exh.D-4. They relied upon the evidence produced by defendant No,3.
4. The learned trial Court after due appraisal of evidence of the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Vehari dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs on 30-6-2006. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Vehari which was entrusted to Additional District Judge who vide order dated 21-11-2006 remanded the case to Civil Judge/trial Court after framing an additional issue No,6-A which is reproduced below:-- "Whether the disputed Ihata is fixed for mueens and the plaintiffs are not entitled for allotment. If suit Ihata was specified for the mueens then what is its effect? OPD
5. The learned Civil Judge/trial Court, Vehari on 25-4-2008 again dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners again filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Vehari against order dated 25-4-2008 which was placed before Additional District Judge, Vehari on 16-10- 2008 and the same was dismissed. In this civil revision petitioners called in question both the orders dated 16-10-2008 passed by Additional District Judge and dated 24-4-2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vehari.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are against law and facts of the case. Both the judgments are based on surmises and conjectures. These judgments were passed without application of judicial mind and are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The petitioners are in physical possession of the Ihata No,64 situated in Chak No,303/EB and the houses of the petitioners are constructed and they are residing in the said Ihata. Learned counsel further contended that both the Courts below wrongly held that the Ihata in dispute was meant for mueens while the petitioners claim is not for the said Ihata as mueen. They are land owners. This Ihata meant for mueens cannot be allowed to them.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length.
8. Learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Vehari in his order, dated 30-6-2006 and subsequent order passed on 25-4-2008 after remand of the case from Additional District Judge, Vehari has discussed at length the facts of this case. Learned trial Court on each and every issue after appraisal of evidence reached at a right and correct conclusion specifically with regard to additional issue No,6-A which was framed by stage in a suit for dissolution. It has been further stated in the aforesaid provisions that in case of failure of pre-trial decree for dissolution of marriage shall be passed forthwith.
' Faced with the above provision learned counsel was not able to satisfy the Court as no order whatsoever in consequence to pre-trial has been passed till date but learned counsel wants this Court to stop the learned Family Court-Respondent No,2 from discharging its legal duty under the law which cannot be done in constitutional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, no jurisdictional defect or conduct of the Presiding Officer in the proceedings has been challenged by the petitioner. Apart from the above no other point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of present petition. In response to the query of the Court that how this petition is maintainable, learned counsel submitted that it is the inherent power of the Court to stay the judicial proceedings. The submission of learned counsel is wholly misplaced. It is stated under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, only on aggrieved party can maintain a petition not being the case of quo warranto and habeas corpus.
' For the aforesaid reasons this petition fails and was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs on 12-3-2010 by a short order and above D are the reasons of the same.