SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.-- Petitioner, through the instant writ petition has questioned the judgment/order dated 13-6-2012 of the learned Judge, Family Court, at Peshawar, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to summon the proposed witnesses through Court.
2. We have gone through the available record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. A glimpse at the impugned judgment/order clearly reveals the malice and mala fide on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings of-the suit unnecessarily, despite the fact,. That he knows that it was a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower and maintenance against him and in view of the provision of section 12-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, it was mandatory for the Court to decide the suit positively within six months from the date of institution and in case of failure on the. part of the trial Court, either party shall have a right to make an application to the High Court for necessary direction as the High Court may deem fit. Section 12-A of the Act reads asunder:-- "12-A. Cases to be disposed of within a specific period.-- The Family Court shall dispose of a case, including a suit for dissolution of marriage within a period of six months from the date of institution: Provided that where a case is not disposed of within six months, either party shall have a right to make an application to the High Court for necessary direction,. As the High Court may deem fit."
4. The impugned judgment/order further shows that in this case on three or four occasions, the hearing was adjourned for recording evidence of the defendant but each and every time the hearing of the case Was adjourned at the instance of the defendant on one pretext or the other.
The case in hand was fixed on 9-6-2012 for recording evidence of the defendant but on the said date his evidence was not available, so the case was adjourned for 12-6-2012 with strict direction to produce his entire evidence on the date fixed but instead of producing evidence, he submitted an application for the deposit of diet money for summoning the proposed witnesses. The way and manner adopted by the petitioner clearly exposed his conduct that he wanted to delay the proceedings unnecessarily by taking adjournments on pne excuse or the other; hence the learned trial Court was left with no alternative but closed the right of his producing evidence. No ex parte decree has been granted. Such cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence and there was ample opportunity to the petitioner to adduce a best quality of evidence to substantiate his claim. When viewed the matter from this angle, we see no legal or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order/judgment, as the same is strictly in compliance with the amended provisions.
Thus the impugned order/judgment is an interim in nature, ordinarily writ cannot be issued. This writ petition being without substance is dismissed in limine. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of two months positively.