' IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Respondent No,2, instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. The petitioner submitted written reply and raised a preliminary objection that the power of attorney appended with the plaint is a fake and invalid document. Along with the written statement, the petitioner made an application that the suit has not been filed by the plaintiff herself or through a person holding a valid power of attorney in his favour. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned Judge Family Court, vide order dated 16-3-2011, dismissed the application.
On account of failure of the pre-trial reconciliation proceedings, the suit for dissolution of marriage has been decreed on the basis of Khula vide judgment and decree dated 22-3-2011. The order dated 16-3-2011, dismissing the application for dismissal of the suit and the decree dated 22-3-2011, are impugned through this Constitutional petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was liable to be dismissed as it was neither instituted by the respondent/plaintiff herself nor it was signed, verified and instituted on behalf of a person duly authorized by the plaintiff. He refers to the plaint which has been signed on behalf of the plaintiff by Mst. Sameen Sultana, her mother and has been filed on 14- 1-2011 and the power of attorney which has been attested by the Vice-Consul, Consulate General of Pakistan Toronto, on the same day. He contends that on the day when the plaint was signed by the alleged attorney and the suit was instituted, the attorney did not possess a valid document authorizing her to institute a suit. The power of attorney attested on 14-1-2011, at Toronto could not be in possession of the attorney when she instituted the suit, the same day. The suit on this single score should have been dismissed. He alleges the violation of Rule 4 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, which stipulates that the plaint shall be signed and verified by the plaintiff and shall be presented by the plaintiff or through a counsel where the plaintiff is a female by her agent.
It is further contended that under section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the trial Court after receipt of the written statement, shall fix a date for pre-trial hearing of the case and make attempt to effect compromise or reconciliation between the parties. He argues that the presence in person of the respondent/plaintiff was necessary at the pre-trial reconciliation proceedings and agent or attorney could not represent the plaintiff, as the proxy representation on this occasion will frustrate the intention of the legislature.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the.Record.
4. The language of Rule 4 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, requiring the signing, verification and presentation of the plaint is identical to the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of C.P.C. Any omission or irregularity in the signing and verification of the pleadings, and presentation of the plaint is rectifiable at a subsequent stage. A plaint cannot be rejected and a suit cannot be dismissed for any of the irregularities in performing the above said acts. A party cannot be deprived of its right to appear and defend the suit through its attorney. Reliance is placed on '2006 M LD 1752' titled Shahida Perveen and another Versus, Sher Afzal and 2 otheRs, Section 10 of the above said Act, requires that after the receipt of the written statement, the Court shall fix a date for pre-trial hearing of the case and shall attempt to effect a compromise for reconciliation between the parties, if possible, and in case of failure in the reconciliation efforts, the Court shall pass a decree for dissolution of marriage forthwith. The language of the said section does not make the presence of the parties in person, obligatory. Section 18 of the said Act, also allows the appearance of a person before a Family Court by a duly authorized agent, if the person required to appear before the Court is a 'Pardanashin lady'. The language of this code applies to the person in general and is not specifically meant to apply to the parties to a suit. The language of this section does not take away the right of a party to appear through an authorized agent as section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, permits and recognizes such representation. In my view, I am supported by 'PLD 1979 Note 50' in case titled Abdul Majid v.
Mukhtar Begum and another. Reliance is also place on '1981 SCM R 395' titled Mst. Saeeda v. Lal Badshah and PLD 1979 Lahore 217' titled Khalid Mehmood Syed v. Razi Abbas Bokhari and another.
The non-presence of the parties in person at the pre-trial stage, does not vitiate the proceedings.
Reference is made to 1979 CLC 647 titled Sadiq Ali v. Mst. Bashiran and another. There is another aspect of the case that should escape the notice of the Court. On the day of pre-trial proceedings, when the appearance of the plaintiff through an attorney is objected to, the petitioner/defendant himself was absent and did not bother to participate in the proceedings. He himself incurring a graver omission, cannot be accepted objecting the representation of the plaintiff through an attorney.
5. For the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 16-3-2011 and the decree dated 22-3- 2011, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. This petition has no force. It is, hereby, dismissed in limine.