1. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Through this petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree, dated .20-2-2008 passed by learned 2nd Family Judge, Khairpur in Family Suit No.25 of 2007 and judgment, dated 29-9-2008 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Family Appeal No. Nil of 2009.
2. Brief facts leading to the controversy are that the respondent No.1 filed Family Suit No.25 of 2007 against the petitioner before learned 2nd Family Judge, Khairpur for recovery of dower, dowery articles and maintenance. Such suit was contested by the petitioner and after recording of parties' evidence, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 20-2-2008 decreed the suit of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner felt himself aggrieved and preferred appeal before learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Khairpur. Learned appellate Court heard the parties and vide judgment and decree, dated 29-9-2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has half heartedly attacked the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below. He contended that judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, none was present on behalf of the respondent No.1 Mst. Zubeda Begum.
5. However, learned A.A.-G. Was in attendance. Learned A.A.-G. Submitted that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the competent forums cannot be distributed constitutional jurisdiction. He further submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He has supported the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by contending that same are strictly in accordance with law and record. He further submitted that judgment and decree passed by the Courts below be maintained as no error in conduct of proceedings, or mis-reading or non-reading of material has been pointed out by the petitioner's counsel.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it appears that the judgment and decree were passed by learned Family Court strictly in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the material placed on record during course of evidence. The appellate judgment has also been examined and the same is also in line with the material available on record. From the perusal of file, it further appear that after dismissal of the appeal execution proceedings being Execution Application No.3 of 2008 commenced before the learned Family Court, who vide order, dated 18-5-2009 allowed the Execution Application to the extent of prayer A(1),(3) and (4) of the Execution Application and Judgment Debtor was directed to deposit decretal amount within thirty days and Execution Application was disposed of. It is settled law that High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, cannot sit as Court of appeal on the question of facts and concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below cannot be disturbed unless same suffer from jurisdictional defects or non reading or misreading of evidence available on record. Such findings of facts cannot be disturbed in its constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that different view was possible on the same material. Learned counsel for the petitioner has . Failed to point out any jurisdictional defect in the conduct of proceedings or any non reading or misreading of evidence which has adversely affected the petitioner.
8. Since the decree has already been executed and Execution Application has been disposed of, present petition merits no consideration which was accordingly dismissed by a short order, dated 12-10-2010, these are the reasons for the same.